tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-105691542017-08-15T14:41:30.509-04:00Clean Air WatchWe’ve made progress in cleaning up the air. But it’s way too soon to breathe easy.Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17296129096065909102noreply@blogger.comBlogger1182125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-63310354618164206822017-08-15T14:41:00.001-04:002017-08-15T14:41:30.528-04:00Guest Post: URGENT ALERT-- Add Your Voice to Save California’s Bees and Clean Up our Air<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><i>[This is a guest post by Triston Mendez with the California-based Planning and Conservation League]</i></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Every acre plowed up this last spring to grow corn for ethanol delivered a blow to California’s commercial bee colonies and efforts to clean up California’s air.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X7enjtfS6EI/WZM8od19p3I/AAAAAAAAArQ/S5RquX_h0HE7ZdM7gI2GBe1fCZClDbKrQCLcBGAs/s1600/bees%2Bnew.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X7enjtfS6EI/WZM8od19p3I/AAAAAAAAArQ/S5RquX_h0HE7ZdM7gI2GBe1fCZClDbKrQCLcBGAs/s1600/bees%2Bnew.jpg" /></a></span></div></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span><span style="font-kerning: none;">Growing corn for ethanol has caused the loss of huge swaths of grassland habitat—and plowed under millions of acres of land that California’s commercial bees depend on for summer forage when they are not pollinating crops. California’s commercial bees are essential to pollinating billions of dollars’ worth of crops and employing ten-of-thousands of Californians growing almonds, alfalfa, melons, citrus, avocados, and sunflowers. Destroying more grassland to grow corn for fuel will put already stressed bee colonies in further jeopardy and there are efforts underway in Washington DC to increase the use of corn-ethanol in our fuel from the current 10% (also known as E-10) to 15% (E-15) which will mean millions of more areas of grasslands lost.</span></div><a name='more'></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span more--="" style="font-kerning: none;">Increasing the use of corn-ethanol will also impact California’s air quality and contribute to increased levels of ground-level ozone – which we all call smog. In warmer summer months, ethanol increases the amount of ground-level ozone generated by gasoline. In addition to making the air hazy, smog is a lung irritant that contributes to asthma and other breathing trouble. The vapors that form it are also potentially carcinogenic. Studies have clearly shown that increased usage of ethanol in gasoline leads to higher smog levels, particularly in heavily populated areas. Again, higher ozone levels are associated with asthma and other respiratory problems, especially among children and the elderly. California has made tremendous gains in cleaning up our air and we cannot afford to rollback any of those hard won victories.</span><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I7kWqO1peqw/WZM9YDeWYRI/AAAAAAAAArU/EEGbUf9RdF8o1hDmLjBPaRmYcGdunn5egCLcBGAs/s1600/los%2Bangeles%2Bsmog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-I7kWqO1peqw/WZM9YDeWYRI/AAAAAAAAArU/EEGbUf9RdF8o1hDmLjBPaRmYcGdunn5egCLcBGAs/s320/los%2Bangeles%2Bsmog.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span more--="" style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span><span more--="" style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Members of Congress from both parties are looking at reforming the corn-ethanol mandate in the renewable fuel standard this year—please add your voice so they know you want to stop further loss of summer forage lands for bees and that we all deserve cleaner air!</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">You can learn more about cleaning our air and saving bees at <a href="http://www.pcl.org/campaigns/reform-corn"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(5, 99, 193); color: #0563c1;">www.pcl.org/campaigns/reform-corn</span></a> or you can <a href="https://actionnetwork.org/letters/0469218664dd696d6551e24c9864d92e61fb48e5"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(5, 99, 193); color: #0563c1;"><b>TAKE ACTION</b></span></a></span><span style="color: #0563c1; text-decoration: underline;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-kerning: none;">now.&nbsp; Thank you!</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">(links to alert landing page address listed below)</span></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(5, 99, 193); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; color: #0563c1; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://actionnetwork.org/letters/0469218664dd696d6551e24c9864d92e61fb48e5"><b>https://actionnetwork.org/letters/0469218664dd696d6551e24c9864d92e61fb48e5</b></a></span><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black;"><b>&nbsp;</b></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black;"><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13.696000099182129px;"><i>Triston Mendez is a Policy Associate with the Planning and Conservation League and a student of Cal Poly Pomona majoring in Political Science while simultaneously minoring in both Regenerative Studies and History.</i></span></span></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-52856266072521236252017-07-28T11:17:00.001-04:002017-07-28T11:17:24.822-04:00Top Seven Cities with the Cleanest Air<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><i><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: &quot;trebuchet ms&quot;;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-size: 11px;">[With so&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 11px;">much</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-size: 11px;">&nbsp;bad news lately, we thought it was time for some good news -- this guest post by&nbsp;</span></span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: &quot;trebuchet ms&quot;; font-size: 11px;">Michael Elecho]</span></i></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Every year, the American Lung Association releases its annual review of the air quality in the United States. Dubbed, “The State of the Air,” this report focuses on letting families and individuals make informed decisions about what cities and areas in the country to live in. This is especially important for people with <a href="https://www.thinkcrucial.com/blogs/blog/allergies-why-do-they-make-us-miserable"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 255); color: blue;">allergies or other sensitivities to airborne contaminants</span></a>.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Another facet of The State of the Air address is the list of the cities with the best quality of air in the United States. By looking at the amount of particle pollution and ozone in official monitoring sites, the ALA is able to assess how good the air is across the country and track general trends. Needless to say, emission reductions brought about by the U.S. Clean Air Act have improved air quality throughout the nation.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">The best cities to live in if you’re concerned about air quality, however, are seven cities that ranked top in terms of air quality, with five repeating for the second year in a row. They are located as far north and east as Vermont, as far south as Florida, and as far west as Hawaii. These seven cities are offered in alphabetic order, because they all had zero high particle pollution days all year.</span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Burlington – South Burlington, Vermont, pop. 217,042</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Burlington is a known ski and snowboard mecca, and as such has a vested interest in keeping their air clean and pure. Legislature and regulations enacted by Vermont have helped reduce ozone and particulate pollution across the board in this busy city. This helped this busy metropolitan area breathe easier for the years covered in the AL report.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Cape Coral – Fort Myers – Naples, Florida, pop. 1,059,287</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">This canal-rich city is the largest metropolitan area between Tampa and Miami, yet continues to prove that big cities can have clean air. This area is home to numerous parks and ecological reserves dedicated to protecting local species. This focus helps drive environmental regulations that keep the air around here clean for wild animals and humans alike.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Elmira – Corning, New York, pop. 184,702</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">This sleepy little area actually stretches along the Junction Canal between the two cities of Elmira and Corning in southern New York. The area’s remote location helps to contribute to the quality of air here. The Elmira-Corning area remains a safe haven in an otherwise sporadically polluted state. &nbsp;<i>[Editor's note: Corning is home to Corning Inc. is one of the world's most prominent makers of air pollution control equipment.]</i></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Honolulu, Hawaii, pop. 998,714</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">There’s no doubt that Honolulu’s remote location protects it from cross contamination from other cities and the effects of being near pollution-producing power plants and factories. It also receives a large amount of annual rainfall, which helps to keep particulates in the air down. However it happens, Honolulu recorded levels of ozone and particulates that were among the lowest in the country, making this large metropolitan area a pleasure to work and breathe in.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Palm Bay – Melbourne – Titusville, Florida, pop. 568,088</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Despite a population of nearly 1/2 million people, this city manages to keep its air among the cleanest in the nation. With 29 city parks and lots of beaches, the area has recognized how important it is to keep the city’s air clean for tourists and residents. A high annual rainfall also helps keep particulate pollution down, but the real work comes from Florida’s passion for protecting and preserving nature.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Santa Fe, New Mexico, pop. 188,210</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Santa Fe is renowned for its art scene, with some of the nation’s best and brightest showcased at galleries in this southwestern city. The city’s population cares about the air they breathe and it shows. The city recently unveiled a sculpture that measures particulates that cause air pollution. To help combat this, there are limits on burning wood, which is a major contributor of particulates.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Wilmington, North Carolina, pop. 277,969</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Wilmington is new to the list, and the bustling port city couldn’t be happier. Part of this has to do with the city lowering vehicle emission requirements and the recent Clean Smokestacks Act, which went into effect in 2002. The city also recently had a major power plant switch from coal to natural gas, which caused a 99 percent drop in sulfur dioxide emissions.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">In the 164-page report, the ALA cited three cities in California as having the worst air quality of anywhere in the nation. Los Angeles has the worst ozone pollution, a position it has held since the report started 18 years ago. Bakersfield has the worst short-term particle pollution, and Visalia-Porterfield-Hanford in the San Joaquin Valley has the dubious honor of being the most-polluted city for year-round particle pollution.</span></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><i>This is a guest post by Michael Elecho from&nbsp;</i><a href="https://www.thinkcrucial.com/"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(17, 85, 204); color: #1155cc;"><i>ThinkCrucial.com</i></span></a><i>, a home improvement brand that helps people save money on replacement parts.</i></span></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-46512231294731507272017-07-24T14:58:00.004-04:002017-07-24T14:58:41.969-04:00Guest Post: Why Isn't Everyone Using More Biofuels?<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><i>["Biofuels." It's a raging issue in D.C. Should what some call the "corn mandate" be repealed -- or expanded? &nbsp;Both Big Oil and Big Corn have deployed Big Lobbyists to duke it out. And major conservation groups such as the National Wildlife Federation have raised big concerns about corn-based ethanol. &nbsp;<a href="http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/General-NWF/2017/7-21-17-In-Major-Victory-Conservation-Groups-Beat-Back-Attempt-to-Expand-Use-of-Corn-Ethanol.aspx">NWF celebrates in one skirmish against more corn ethanol</a>.</i></span><br /><span style="font-kerning: none;"><i>Guest blogger Emily Folk takes a big-picture look at this controversial issue.]</i></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b><br /></b></span><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Why Isn't Everyone Using Biofuels?</b></span><span style="font-kerning: none; text-decoration: underline;"><b>&nbsp;</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Like many people, you’ve probably heard scientists proclaiming their warning for years: Since fuels like coal and crude oil aren’t renewable resources, our supply will eventually run out. As the amount available becomes increasingly scarce, the cost will go up, too. Nonrenewable fuels also create harmful substances when burned. Because of these obvious problems, some people have suggested biofuels are the way of the future. Is that really the case, though?</span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>What Are Biofuels?</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Almost any type of organic matter can be a fuel. Biofuels are made up of waste products and crops. Theoretically, that means if we start to run low, farmers will just need to grow more of the necessary components. Using that logic, biofuels sound great because we could produce the ingredients for them on home soil. This would reduce and eventually eliminate dependence on nonrenewable resources that originate from regions of unrest, like the Middle East.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Two of the most well-known biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel, and both are usually put into cars or trucks. Even though most experts agree biodiesels have notable advantages, there are also numerous downsides.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>They Don’t Always Result in Lower Emissions</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Biofuels <a href="http://resources.opencleantech.com/our-blog/biofuels-1st-2nd-and-3rd-generation"><span style="color: blue; line-height: normal;">are grouped into three types</span></a>. First-generation biofuels are made from foods humans eat, such as corn, wheat and vegetable oil. Conversely, second-generation biofuels come from things that aren’t fit for consumption, such as agriculture waste. Finally, third-generation biofuels are sourced from algae.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">A worrisome report published by the Royal Academy of Engineers contained more than 250 evaluations of biofuels produced worldwide. It found that some first-generation biofuels <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/14/biofuels-need-to-be-improved-for-battle-against-climate-change"><span style="color: blue; line-height: normal;">created more emissions than the fossil fuels they replaced</span></a> and that algae-based fuels have a long way to go before they live up to expectations. On a positive note, some sources of biofuel, such as corncobs, have a nearly zero-emission status.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Biofuels Require Suitable Land for Growing</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Some supporters of biofuels who haven’t done adequate research think it’s possible to grow crops for biofuels almost anywhere. The truth is, growing materials to make <a href="https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-biofuels#impacts"><span style="color: blue; line-height: normal;">biofuels requires lots of fertile land</span></a>. Finding enough land to grow the crops is one challenge, but it’s also important to realize that when land gets cleared in preparation for planting crops, that activity causes rising emissions too. That is especially true in places like the Amazon rainforest and Southeastern Asia.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>Biofuels Must Be Chosen Intelligently</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">The U.S. Navy attracted attention from the press when it set a goal of <a href="https://shipandbunker.com/news/world/143015-latest-us-navy-biofuel-bunkers-are-bad-for-the-environment-expensive-barely-biofuel-at-all-says-critic"><span style="color: blue; line-height: normal;">getting half its energy from non-petroleum sources by 2020</span></a> and has been depending on biofuels to meet it. However, although the Navy was using an algae-based biofuel blend in 2012, it now relies on a first-generation, Italian-made substance that contains a much lower percentage of biofuel and is very expensive.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Perhaps one of the reasons why some people and organizations delay adopting biofuels is because choosing any variety does not necessarily translate into something good for the planet. Before getting serious about choosing among the various types of biofuels available, individuals and companies must do substantial research to determine the overall impacts of certain fuels versus others — and that’s an extra step some may not be willing to take.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><i>[Emily Folk is a freelance writer and blogger, covering topics in conservation, sustainability and renewable energy. To see her latest posts, check out her blog <a href="http://conservationfolks.com/"><span style="color: blue; line-height: normal;">Conservation Folks</span></a>, or follow her on <a href="https://twitter.com/EmilySFolk"><span style="color: blue; line-height: normal;">Twitter</span></a>!]</i></span></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-40476234622949014182017-07-17T13:06:00.000-04:002017-07-19T09:08:34.818-04:00Ten Good Reasons for the U.S. Senate to Oppose the Smoggy Skies Act<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><i><b><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span>[Update: the House of Representatives did approve the Smoggy Skies Act yesterday by a 229-199 vote, mostly but not exclusively along party lines. &nbsp;Eleven Republican members voted against. &nbsp;The outcome was far from a shock, but it was encouraging to see so many opposed. &nbsp;The legislation now goes to an uncertain fate in the Senate, &nbsp;The arguments noted below still apply.]</b></i><br /><br /><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">There are plenty of reasons to oppose the Smoggy Skies Act (HR 806) which is coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives tomorrow.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><a href="https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr806/BILLS-115hr806rh.pdf">https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr806/BILLS-115hr806rh.pdf</a></span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">&nbsp;</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-size: 13.2px;">Here are 10 of them:</span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">1) Ozone not only can make you sick, it can shorten your life.&nbsp; The Smoggy Skies Act would subject the breathing public to unhealthful levels of ozone for a longer time.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">2) The Smoggy Skies Act would demand that the federal government mislead the public about dangerous air pollution.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">3) The “Act” would overturn a unanimous Supreme Court ruling — written by the late Justice Scalia — which held that national air quality standards should be based only on health, not cost of “feasibility.”</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">4) It would prohibit the EPA from proposing new ozone standards before late 2025 — no matter what new science finds.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">5) It would delay scientific review of OTHER air quality standards such as those for fine-particle soot and toxic lead.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">6) The Smoggy Skies Act flies in the face of public opinion. An American Lung Association poll found that American by a 2-1 margin believe Congress should maintain standards that reduce the amount of smog-forming pollution from power plants, refineries and other smokestack industries.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">7) The “Act” would reverse the intention of the Clean Air Act; its bipartisan authors believed that air quality standards based on health protection would drive the development of clean-up technology.&nbsp; They were right!</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">8) It would grant amnesty to new sources of pollution (how do you spell “fracking?") in polluted areas.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">9) It would ignore public health protection from dirty air when the air is "stagnant."</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(23, 23, 27); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #17171b; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13.2px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">10) The Smoggy Skies Act has the appearance of a payoff to big polluters who favor its passage — and who have made generous campaign contributions. <span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><a href="http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2016/08/dirty-airbnb.html">http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2016/08/dirty-airbnb.html</a></span></span></div><div><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-23514441498731623052017-06-27T09:51:00.000-04:002017-06-27T09:51:01.367-04:00Guest Post: Air Pollution in North India and What is being done about it!<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><i><span style="font-kerning: none;">(On the heels of Indian Prime Minister Modi's visit to Washington, we are pleased to publish this informative guest post by&nbsp;</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: #222222;">Ms. Sahiba Sadana)</span></i></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">According to an <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/10-of-worlds-20-most-polluted-cities-in-india-list-inside/articleshow/52249911.cms"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(17, 85, 204); color: #1155cc;">news update in Times of India</span></a>, India has been reported to have 10 cities in the list of top 20 polluted cities in the world. Air Pollution in India is quite a serious issue, especially in North India.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">According to NASA’s satellite image, Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi are the cities that are covered under the smog blanket more than others.&nbsp;</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xIHxTVk5R40/WVJgaa_KwbI/AAAAAAAAAo8/nYXeKU3B3TIteRQ7_QF9yK_OHopy-OWogCLcBGAs/s1600/north%2Bindia%2Btwo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="660" data-original-width="1200" height="176" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xIHxTVk5R40/WVJgaa_KwbI/AAAAAAAAAo8/nYXeKU3B3TIteRQ7_QF9yK_OHopy-OWogCLcBGAs/s320/north%2Bindia%2Btwo.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /><i>Image Source: NASA</i></span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Until now, many were pointing towards the crackers [fireworks] burning on Diwali as the biggest reason behind the increasing air pollution a few years back. And, in a way it was true too. But, the crop burning seemed to be the major issue, as highlighted recently. The pollution caused due to this activity infects the lungs and can cause adverse respiratory issues. Down to this, the daily routine of the citizens in the national capital is extremely affected by the worse air quality. In fact, the rise in air pollution is directly proportional to the number of people visiting hospital for respiratory issues.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Many people protested against the government and asked it to come up with a solution for this rising issue. In response, the government took a step ahead with <a href="http://www.greentribunal.gov.in/"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 255); color: blue;">NGT- National Green Tribunal</span></a> which stated that burning the stubble should be banned completely. Also, the state government of Delhi has announced that there will be vacuum cleaning and water sprinkling over arterial roads. In fact, to reduce the dust rate in the air, Government promised that a team will be formed to clean the dust from construction sites. The government stated that if anyone was found breaking the norms of NGT, they will be heavily punished or fined.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">However, despite everything done by the government, the images released by NASA towards the end of April show increased fires in Delhi-NCR. Also, in Haryana and Punjab, the figures are constantly increasing for crop burning. Despite the NGT Act by the government people, didn’t stop burning the residue crops. Lack of individual volunteering is to blame.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">The quality of air in Delhi is recorded to be <a href="http://clonewdelhi.com/custom/AQI/missionindiaaqi.php"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 255); color: blue;">943 AQI PM2.5</span></a> which is almost 15 times more than it is supposed to be according to the health limit set by the government. PM2.5 signifies tiny particles that run through air with the diameter of 2.5 or more.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W0oGQxoxzTg/WVJhAGvdCmI/AAAAAAAAApE/BAf1nZdLYqsbIZm5a8gMde4-rT9DHwOWQCLcBGAs/s1600/north%2Bindia%2Bthree.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="1200" height="168" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W0oGQxoxzTg/WVJhAGvdCmI/AAAAAAAAApE/BAf1nZdLYqsbIZm5a8gMde4-rT9DHwOWQCLcBGAs/s320/north%2Bindia%2Bthree.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /><i>Image Source: NASA</i>&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">On one hand, people are signing petitions against this stubble burning act and on the other hand there are people who are still carrying out the process without any fear of punishment and fine. Even, the farmers are angrily demanding for an alternate option to get rid of the residue crops.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">One of the petitioners Vikrant Togde noted that tribunal asked for explanations from the people who are still practicing the same activity. <i>“We submitted photographs to the NGT which prompted the court to seek a compliance report from Punjab, Haryana, UP and Rajasthan on the action taken against erring farmers, fines levied on them and the subsidy that has to be given to farmers to tackle this situation,”</i> as quoted by Indian Express.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-x6Qrxkg8Ez4/WVJhLCg344I/AAAAAAAAApI/KcDSBpmEZic6xmlaV2Cxv8t7YatYhLmmQCLcBGAs/s1600/north%2Bindia%2Bone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="620" height="213" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-x6Qrxkg8Ez4/WVJhLCg344I/AAAAAAAAApI/KcDSBpmEZic6xmlaV2Cxv8t7YatYhLmmQCLcBGAs/s320/north%2Bindia%2Bone.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">The issue is bringing the country’s development to a standstill. Government has to come up with something that can relieve the farmers and can beautify the city while ensuring a healthy lifestyle of citizens.</span></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(34, 34, 34); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10px;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black;"><br /></span><span style="font-kerning: none;"><i>Editor Bio - Ms Sahiba Sadana is a professional Content Editor and an avid literature reader. She is the Content Editor at <a href="http://www.sharda.ac.in/"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(5, 99, 193); color: #0563c1;">Sharda University</span></a> and a regular contributor to Business Town, and Munfarid Consulting.</i></span></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-30649679589702519342017-06-14T11:18:00.000-04:002017-06-14T11:29:48.785-04:00Guest Post: Climate Change: How You Can Make a Difference<br /><i>[Needless to say, action by the U.S. government on climate change appears doubtful -- for now. &nbsp;Guest blogger Neil Stawski has some thoughts on what you can do right now.]</i><br /><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Climate change has been on a lot of people’s minds in recent years, and unfortunately it’s not something that will go away anytime soon. With global warming on the rise, it’s becoming clearer that something needs to be done to implement a drastic change. The question is, how do we go about it? &nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jaEAAVb7mVk/WUFWR7BBe7I/AAAAAAAAAn0/emGfKU71PX0Fr6_llTU7V9b0q1FgfkO0QCLcBGAs/s1600/polar%2Bbear.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="448" data-original-width="680" height="210" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jaEAAVb7mVk/WUFWR7BBe7I/AAAAAAAAAn0/emGfKU71PX0Fr6_llTU7V9b0q1FgfkO0QCLcBGAs/s320/polar%2Bbear.png" width="320" /></a></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Photo via Pixabay by <a href="https://pixabay.com/en/polar-bear-iceberg-ice-floe-2199534/"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(17, 85, 204); color: #1155cc;">Cocoparisienne</span></a></span></span></div></div><a name='more'></a><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Because <a href="http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-change-questions-and-answers.html"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(17, 85, 204); color: #1155cc;">climate change</span></a> is a global problem, we do need to start thinking on a global scale. First, however, it’s important to make changes locally and in our own homes. Because humans are the biggest contributors to the problem, we need to find ways to reduce emissions and change our carbon footprints, if for nothing else than for the sake of future generations. The greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere can stay trapped there for years, which means even if we stop contributing to global warming worldwide right now, it will be years before we feel any positive change.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Fortunately, all is not lost. There are many simple things you can do to make a difference, but it has to start at home. Educate yourself and your family about climate change and get your friends and neighbors involved, too. Here are a few of the most frequently asked questions.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b></b></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>How do I get others involved?</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Although just a few people can move mountains, it’s going to take a group effort to make real change where global warming is concerned. Talk to your friends, family, and neighbors about what they can do to help and offer suggestions. You can even have a fundraiser, complete with <a href="https://www.rushordertees.com/design-t-shirts/"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(17, 85, 204); color: #1155cc;">t-shirts</span></a> to be sold or handed out to donors in order to raise awareness. Those who see others wearing these shirts will understand that this is a cause that matters to people and may even ask about the fundraiser.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>How can I make changes at home?</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">One of the first things you can do is change out all your light bulbs for <a href="http://www.solarcity.com/residential/energy-efficient-homes"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(17, 85, 204); color: #1155cc;">energy-efficient</span></a> bulbs. Replacing those incandescent bulbs is not only better for the environment, it can save you money on your utility bill every year. It’s also a good idea to make sure you turn off those lights as soon as you’re done using them, or use natural light during the day as much as possible.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">After that, weatherize your home. Make sure doors and windows have a good seal around them, and, if necessary, provide better insulation in attic spaces, especially before winter hits. Making sure your home is energy efficient could save about 2,000 pounds of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from escaping into the atmosphere each year.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Use less hot water in the shower and when washing clothes and dishes. This can help significantly reduce the carbon dioxide emissions your home puts out every day, and--double plus bonus--can also save you money.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">If your car is a gas guzzler, or if it’s an older model that doesn’t get the best mileage, consider trading up for a hybrid car or a smaller model. If that’s not in the cards, keep your automobile in good shape and make sure the tires have the right pressure in them. Low tire pressure can eat up your gas because the car is working harder, so have everything checked out when you get an oil change.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">You can also look into taking public transit or carpooling rather than using your own car every day. The more emissions you can reduce, the better it is for the environment.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b>What can I do to help mitigate the damage?</b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Trees absorb carbon dioxide and provide oxygen in return, and in doing so they are an integral part of the Earth’s ability to fight off the heat-trapping gas. You can plant some trees of your own, a wonderful way to help since there just aren’t enough of them to stop the <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-climate-change-mitigation-1203893"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(17, 85, 204); color: #1155cc;">damage</span></a> from getting worse. Engage your neighborhood in getting more trees in the ground, especially in areas of new development.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Remember, this topic is a very sensitive subject for some, and it can be difficult to understand or suss out the <a href="https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/common-climate-questions/"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(17, 85, 204); color: #1155cc;">facts</span></a> due to a large amount of misinformation floating around. Be mindful of that and courteous when it comes to talking about how we can make a difference.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"><i><span style="font-kerning: none;">[</span><span style="font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot;;">Mr. Stawski believes an informed, engaged public is the only way to save</span></i></div><span style="font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot;; font-size: 12px;"><i>the planet. He uses ClimateWise to inspire action.]</i></span><br /><div><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-27360395799019234062017-05-04T10:57:00.001-04:002017-05-17T11:30:19.151-04:00Guest Post: 10 ways technology advances have helped reduce emissions in modern cars<i>[Clean Air Watch is pleased to present this guest post by Amanda Grison]</i><br /><br />Automotive manufacturers have to produce vehicles that are not only fuel-efficient, but which will reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emission. The following are the 10 ways which shows how technology advances have helped reduce emissions in modern cars.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a><br /><u>Turbocharging</u><br />Turbochargers are popular for making vehicles go faster. But they are now leading in the race towards reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emission. Industry leaders agree that turbo technology is a cost effective route to achieving the needed results. The primary concept of turbochargers is recycling energy from the exhaust gas and therefore transforming more of the consumed fuel energy into power. Therefore,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.myholsetturbo.com/turbo.html">turbocharged engines provide better fuel economy</a>, lesser carbon dioxide emission and better performance as compared with the non-turbocharged engines.<br /><img src="blob:https://www.blogger.com/7a55d4c3-25ce-4488-b812-5afe85f18363" /><br /><u>Synthetic oils</u><br />Even though synthetic oils will appear expensive at the first sight, they are better than conventional oils for long-term health of your vehicle. Producers make this oil from chemical products or refine it from the naturally occurring crude oil. The oil helps reduce the vehicle’s wear during cold start up, increases fuel economy and reduces carbon dioxide emission to the environment.<br /><br /><u>Machined camshafts</u><br />Popularity of machined camshafts is increasing in the marketplace. That is particularly due to their efficiency in reducing weight compared to the one-piece counterparts. The camshafts have also started making their way into the truck sector. Some of their benefits include lower weight, lower cost, great flexibility during production and the option of different materials application for constituent components. The camshafts also help minimize fuel consumption and CO2 gas emissions.<br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><br /></div><u>Low resistance tires</u><br /><a href="https://www.carzoos.com.au/blog/lifestyle/run-flats-vs-regular-tyres">Low rolling resistance tires</a>&nbsp;will help you get better mileage from your car, save on your fuel costs and help minimize carbon emission. Manufacturers have been using these wheels on electric and hybrid vehicles, but they are now making their ways slowly into the traditional automotive market. The main reason why manufacturers are using them on the traditional vehicles is to help maximize the fuel mileage. They are available in a wide variety to help suit different driving and vehicle needs.<br /><br /><u>Adaptive resistance</u><br />Whenever someone mentions the phrase “autonomous vehicles” what gets in your mind is the world of tomorrow. You can easily visualize safer cruising down highways while waiting work emails or reading for pleasure – instead of watching the highway. Today, adaptive cruise control is saving around 700 million liters of fuel per year and preventing around 1.7 million tons of CO2 emissions. As technology changes, we expect lower carbon dioxide gas emissions to the environment.<br /><br /><u>Automatic switching of the engine when stopping</u><br />An operating vehicle will emit a variety of gases from the tailpipe including CO2, which is the principal greenhouse gas contributing to climatic change. Whenever a vehicle idles for 10 seconds, it will use more fuel and produce more CO2 gas than when restarting the engine. This means that automatic switching of the engine helps in reducing carbon emission to the atmosphere. That particularly applies to diesel vehicles, which produce more carbon dioxide gas per liter.<br /><br /><u>More efficient combustion</u><br />The level of carbon dioxide emission from combustion highly depends on the carbon content of the used fuel. Carbon is completely oxidized during combustion leading to CO2 emission. Through efficiency improvement in vehicle engines, the level of Carbon emission to the environment has reduced by around 40%.<br /><br /><u>Lower intake and exhaust resistance</u><br />Vehicle engines are not 100% combustion efficient and therefore some hard carbon will exit through their exhaust systems naturally. For an engine to attain maximum fuel economy, every individual cylinder should operate at the maximum efficiency. Fuel economy does not depend on the entire engine but on the cylinders operating with the injectors and combustion chambers to achieve maximum level of combustion efficiency.<br /><br /><u>Fuel Oil Emulsion technology</u><br /><a href="http://www.nanofuel.co.jp/eng/nef.html">The fuel oil emulsion</a>&nbsp;(FOE) technology burns more fuel completely and therefore, vehicle use less fuel per mile. Emissions are minimal and the engines run cooler. Therefore, need for maintenance is less. The technology has minimized use of fuel and level of carbon emission to the environment. Vehicle owners are also saving on the fuel cost.<br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><img src="blob:https://www.blogger.com/de0b544c-64d4-49ad-bd4d-2848790e63b8" /></div><u>Front-Wheel drive vehicle hybrid system</u><br />The wide range of cars available in the United States boast front-wheel drive layout. The drive design has many benefits include great interior room, shorter hoods and greater efficiency due to minimized parasitic drag. The cars offer greater fuel economy and emits less carbon dioxide to the environment.<br /><br /><br /><i>[Amanda Grison was born and raised in Athens. She notes that "On the whole I am a 'city girl,' being used to noisy crowds, warm and polluted days, but also lively and joyful nights. I am a big fan of art and when I was younger I wanted to become either a painter or a writer – the latter being still my unfulfilled dream. Nonetheless, the last ten years, I have been occupied with less …urban but equally inspiring activities, through my work at WWF Greece."]</i>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-51931922809807192482017-04-26T11:56:00.001-04:002017-04-26T11:56:22.122-04:00Clean Air Advocates Urge EPA to Reduce Smog in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Across the Eastern U.S.<br />NEWS RELEASE<br /><br />Contact:<br />Sharyn Stein, EDF, 202-572-3396, sstein@edf.org<br />Leah Kelly, Environmental Integrity Project, 202-263-4448, lkelly@environmentalintegrity.org<br />John Sheehan, Adirondack Council, 518-441-1340, jsheehan@adirondackcouncil.org<br />Anneka Wisker, Moms Clean Air Force, 202-572-3308, awisker@momscleanairforce.org<br />Stuart Ross, CATF, 914-649-5037, sross@catf.us<br />Trey Pollard, Sierra Club, trey.pollard@sierraclub.org, 202-904-9187<br />Jessica Hodge, Earthjustice, 202-667-4500 ext. 5201, jhodge@earthjustice.org<br />Brook Havlik, WE ACT, 212-961-1000, ext. 320, brooke@weact.org<br />Frank O'Donnell, Clean Air Watch, 202-558-3527, frank@cleanairwatch.org<br />Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, Maryland Environmental Health Network, 443-863-5275, tamara@mdehn.org<br />Peter Iwanowicz, Environmental Advocates of New York, 518-462-5526 x 228, piwanowicz@eany.org<br /><br /><br />Clean Air Advocates Urge EPA to Reduce Smog in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Across the Eastern U.S.<br /><br />(Washington, D.C. – April 26, 2017) A coalition of public health, conservation, and environmental groups representing millions of Americans is going to bat for the states of Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland in a fight with the Trump Administration over smog.<br /><br />The three states have asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for help reducing air pollution that is blowing across their borders from neighboring states – from power plants that have pollution controls, but are not running them. The pollution is adding to these downwind states’ smog problems and is putting the health of their citizens at risk.<br /><br />After several months, EPA has not responded to the states’ requests. The Adirondack Council, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Air Watch, Earthjustice, Environmental Advocates of New York, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Maryland Environmental Health Network, Moms Clean Air Force, Sierra Club, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice have now sent a joint letter to EPA urging the agency to do its job.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>“We strongly urge you to carry out your responsibility under the statutory Good Neighbor provisions of the Clean Air Act to protect communities and families in Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland, and millions more in communities across the eastern United States,” the groups say in their letter. “Taking the common-sense and easily-implemented step of requiring the specified power plants to turn on their existing pollution controls and run them effectively every day during ozone season will help keep the millions of people in these communities from being subjected to dangerous smog levels.”<br /><br />Last year, the states of Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland submitted separate petitions under section 126 of the Clean Air Act (which is part of the Act’s “Good Neighbor” provisions). The petitions asked EPA to find that specified power plants in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia were violating those Good Neighbor provisions because their smokestack pollution contributes to unhealthy ground-level ozone levels in the three petitioning states. (Ground-level ozone is commonly known as smog.)<br /><br />Every one of the power plants identified in the petitions has modern pollution controls installed that the owners are not fully operating, or is capable of running on lower-emitting fuel. The petitions ask EPA to require those power plants to run their already-installed pollution controls every day during the ozone season, which extends from May 1 through September 30.<br /><br />Running those pollution controls would help Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland meet the national, health-based, air quality standards for smog. It would also help improve air quality in the Philadelphia and Washington D.C. areas, in other downwind states like New Jersey and New York, and in communities surrounding the specified power plants in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.<br /><br />You can read Maryland’s full petition here – it includes a list of the power plants that are not fully running their already-installed pollution controls (two of the listed power plants are also the subject of two separate Good Neighbor petitions from Delaware). You can find additional information about the Pennsylvania power plant that is the subject of the Connecticut petition and one of the Delaware petitions here.<br /><br />“Every year in the U.S., air pollution causes thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks, asthma attacks, and missed school and work days,” says the letter from the coalition. “We urge you to carry out your duties under our nation’s clean air laws.”<br /><br />###<br /><br />The Adirondack Council is a privately funded, not-for-profit organization whose mission is to ensure the ecological integrity and wild character of the Adirondack Park. The Council carries out its mission and vision through research, education, advocacy and legal action. Adirondack Council members live in all 50 United States.<br /><br />Clean Air Task Force is a nonprofit environmental organization with offices across the U.S. and in China. CATF works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. For more information, please visit www.catf.us.<br /><br />Clean Air Watch is a national non-profit, non-partisan organization devoted to protecting Clean Air Laws and polices throughout the United States. We closely monitor clean air and climate policy and seek to present a public-interest perspective grounded in fact and analysis.<br /><br />Earthjustice the nation’s premier nonprofit environmental law organization, wields the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people’s health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. Because the earth needs a good lawyer.<br /><br />Environmental Advocates of New York's (eany.org) mission is to protect our air, land, water, and wildlife and the health of all New Yorkers. Based in Albany, we monitor state government, evaluate proposed laws, and champion policies and practices that will ensure the responsible stewardship of our shared environment. We work to support and strengthen the efforts of New York's environmental community and to make our state a national leader.<br /><br />Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on EDF Voices, Twitter and Facebook.<br /><br />The Environmental Integrity Project is a 15-year-old nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, based in Washington D.C., dedicated to enforcing environmental laws and holding polluters and governments accountable to protect public health.<br /><br />The Maryland Environmental Health Network takes action to protect human health by addressing environmental policies and practices that shape the conditions for health in Maryland. We accomplish this through broad application of an equity lens and consistently raising the question of who is most harmed by pollution and environmental degradation.<br /><br />Moms Clean Air Force is a community of over one million moms and dads united against air pollution – including the urgent crisis of our changing climate – to protect our children’s health. We arm members with reliable information and solutions through online resources, articles, action tools and on-the-ground events. More here: http://www.momscleanairforce.org/<br /><br />The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 2.7 million members and supporters. In addition to helping people from all backgrounds explore nature and our outdoor heritage, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action. For more information, visit www.sierraclub.org.<br /><br />WE ACT for Environmental Justice (weact.org) is a Harlem-based, membership driven organization that builds healthy communities by ensuring that people of color and/or low income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health policies and practices. Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook.<br /><div><br /></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-64477495598077921802017-03-22T14:32:00.002-04:002017-03-23T11:58:00.001-04:00Former EPA Staffers, State Environmental Professionals, Assail Proposed EPA Budget(from an analysis by the Environmental Protection Network, a&nbsp;<span style="font-family: &quot;calibri&quot;; font-size: 12pt;">growing bi-partisan network of more than 75 former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency and related federal and state agencies.)</span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;calibri&quot;; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span><br /><div class="page" title="Page 2"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"></div></div></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i><span class="" style="font-family: &quot;calibri&quot;; font-size: 14px;">President Trump’s Budget Blueprint takes an ax to EPA, threatening severe damage to health and environmental programs that have protected Americans for decades. State agency funding is also slashed, even though the Trump Administration is proposing to simultaneously shift more responsibility to the states. The budget further calls for elimination of most EPA climate programs even as the earth continues to warm and climate change impacts grow worse.</span>&nbsp;</i></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i><br /><span class="" style="font-family: &quot;calibri&quot;; font-size: 14px;">There is no evidence that the cuts are based on any real analysis of changing needs. Steep cuts and elimination of many EPA programs seem to reflect ideological views about the role and value of government programs that protect public health and the environment. The Trump Budget Blueprint for EPA appears to be nothing less than a full-throttle attack on the principle underlying all U.S. environmental laws – that protecting the health and environment of all Americans is a national priority.&nbsp;</span></i></blockquote>The whole analysis is available at <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-47Xatsg07SQk5rMGhkSHQtc0U/view?usp=sharing">analysis of proposed EPA budget</a>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-91774366004001575242017-02-17T13:14:00.001-05:002017-02-17T13:14:43.371-05:00Senate Vote on Pruitt: Unconscionable -- A Bipartisan Triumph of Special Interests<span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">Many people will have much to say about the Senate vote to confirm Scott Pruitt to head the U.S. Environmental Protection &nbsp;Agency. &nbsp;Here are a few quick thoughts:</span><br /><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><b><i>It is unconscionable that the Senate would ram this nomination through without knowing all the relevant facts — facts that may be known within a few days. &nbsp;It is a bipartisan triumph of special interests over the broader public interest.</i></b></span>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-55879080335751982572017-02-15T09:20:00.003-05:002017-02-15T09:20:43.244-05:00What's Going to Happen to Cheating Companies Under a New EPA? -- a Guest Post<i>(Clean Air Watch is pleased to present this timely guest post by Gemma Hunt)</i><br /><br /><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /></span></strong></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">While we await a Senate vote on Scott Pruitt's nomination to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an important question lingers in the air: what will happen to enforcement of clean air and water laws under the Trump team? &nbsp;Will companies feel they can cheat -- and harm the public -- as Volkswagen did? &nbsp;</div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">The recent Fiat Chrysler incident could be a test case.</div><a name='more'></a><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Accusations of Clean Air Act Violations for Fiat Chrysler&nbsp;</span></strong></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /></span></strong></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">After the Volkswagen scandal which broke last year, and saw the company guilty of cheating their emissions testing, it seems the latest car company under fire for their violations of the Clean Air Act is Fiat Chrysler.&nbsp; The company stands accused by the Environmental Protection Agency of installing engine management software into several of its passenger vehicles in order to cheat their way through emissions tests. This software allows vehicles that are utilizing it to operate differently during emissions tests than they will when they are functioning normally on the open road: this means they might well pass their emissions tests in isolation, but would actually be breaching the clean air act and emitting levels of nitrogen oxides that are simply too high in reality .The breach is thought to have affected approximately 104,000 models of Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs and Dodge Ram 1500 pickup trucks with 3.0-liter diesel engines that were built in the 2014, 2015 and 2016 model years.</div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><strong><br /></strong></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><strong>Dual Investigations Are Underway</strong><br /><br />The EPA is not the only agency to be investigating the company for this breach: the California Air Resources Board (or CARB) have also issued a violation against Fiat Chrysler and the company remains under investigation from both agencies.&nbsp; The investigation will determine whether the &nbsp;auxiliary emission control devices which were put into the two vehicle types in question are actually classified as defeat devices (which are illegal). If they are found guilty then Fiat Chrysler Automobiles would be liable for both civil penalties (which in itself could cost them millions of dollars) and injunctive relief.</div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />Illegal or not, using this kind of software is certainly immoral, and is pumping more emissions into our air than is currently being declared by the firm. Not only are firms that use this kind of software lying to the EPA, they are also lying to their customers who are not receiving the emission levels they were promised, potentially exposing their family and loved ones to dangerously high levels of emission chemicals, such as nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide from motor vehicles is one of the largest causes of air pollution, and is particularly dangerous to those individuals who live near busy roads or in industrial areas. Regular exposure to nitrogen oxide can lead to respiratory health complaints and allergic reactions: to make it clear, nitrogen oxide is a pollutant which can have a direct impact on human health, and therefore cheating emissions tests in this way could ultimately put lives at risk. Cynthia Giles, the assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance at the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a statement to the press that “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe.”<br /><br /></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><strong>Significant Shares Drop</strong><br /><strong><br /></strong></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">The breaking of this scandal came less than a week after President-elect Donald Trump praised the Fiat Chrysler company for its decision to invest more than $1 billion in US based investments, buildings its plants in Ohio and Michigan, rather than overseas as many of its competitors have chosen to do. However shares in the company fell by over 15% after news of the EPA’s investigation was announced: a significant shares drop in itself worth billions of dollars. (The stock has subsequently rebounded. <a href="http://quotes.wsj.com/FCAU">Fiat Chrysler stock price</a>&nbsp; A sign that investors believe the Trump EPA will not enforce the law?)<br /><br />We are yet to see how this will affect the company’s investment decisions, or how much they will have to pay -- if anything-- in compensation for their breaches of EPA policy once this investigation is complete.<br />But this is definitely a test case worth watching. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">References</span></strong></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">“GUILTY! Volkswagen pays massive fine in cheater scandal, company officials indicted”,&nbsp;<em>Clean Air Watch</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2017/01/guilty-volkswagen-pays-massive-fine-in.html">http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2017/01/guilty-volkswagen-pays-massive-fine-in.html</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">“Move Over, VW: Fiat Chrysler Now Caught In The Crosshairs Of The Clean Air Act”,&nbsp;<em>After Market News</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.aftermarketnews.com/move-over-vw-fiat-chrysler-now-caught-in-the-crosshairs-of-the-clean-air-act/">http://www.aftermarketnews.com/move-over-vw-fiat-chrysler-now-caught-in-the-crosshairs-of-the-clean-air-act/</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Fiat Chrysler under investigation for Clean Air Act violations,&nbsp;<em>Bank Rate</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bankrate.com/financing/cars/fiat-chrysler-under-investigation-for-clean-air-act-violations/#ixzz4W5sDwfdH">http://www.bankrate.com/financing/cars/fiat-chrysler-under-investigation-for-clean-air-act-violations/#ixzz4W5sDwfdH</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">“Compare energy prices”,&nbsp;<em>Quote Zone</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.quotezone.co.uk/utilities/energy-prices.htm">http://www.quotezone.co.uk/utilities/energy-prices.htm</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">“Six things we learnt at the Detroit auto show”,&nbsp;<em>Sci Tech Today</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=101007IRRVUK">http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=101007IRRVUK</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">“Scientific Facts on Air Pollution Nitrogen Oxide”,&nbsp;<em>Green Facts</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.greenfacts.org/en/nitrogen-dioxide-no2/">http://www.greenfacts.org/en/nitrogen-dioxide-no2/</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">“Is Fiat Chrysler Automobiles about to have its own costly diesel emissions scandal?”,&nbsp;<em>Fox Business</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/01/12/is-fiat-chrysler-automobiles-about-to-have-its-own-costly-diesel-scandal.html">http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/01/12/is-fiat-chrysler-automobiles-about-to-have-its-own-costly-diesel-scandal.html</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">“Trump praises Fiat Chrysler and Ford for US Plant Investments,&nbsp;<em>Bloomberg</em>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-09/trump-praises-fiat-chrysler-and-ford-for-u-s-plant-investments">https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-09/trump-praises-fiat-chrysler-and-ford-for-u-s-plant-investments</a></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-37277148936863181212017-01-14T09:00:00.000-05:002017-01-14T09:00:07.462-05:00Guest Post: Why Clean Energy Matters More Now Than Ever<i>(Clean Air Watch is pleased to present this timely guest post by Gemma Hunt)</i><br /><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">During the election campaign process, President-elect Donald Trump was very vocal about his desire to repel many of the clean energy policies put in place by President Obama. He has threatened to abolish the Clean Power Plan, completely remove all federal funding for clean energy schemes and solutions, and opening up large areas previously unopened to them for oil, coal and gas markets. This will put significant pressure on individual states to continue to fund green energy schemes, block the arrival of big energy companies in their territories, and continue to fulfil the vision of the Clean Power Plan independently. This is something that many states will have neither the desire nor the budget to do, and is the reason why an individual commitment to the use of clean energy matters now more than ever.</div><a name='more'></a><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>A Surge in Green Energy Use</strong></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">In the light of Donald Trump’s imminent arrival in the Oval Office, The US Energy Information Agency&nbsp;has said that&nbsp;new coal-fired power plants are “not economically competitive with renewables and other generation sources”, with existing facilities soon to come under pressure from clean energy.&nbsp; Clean energy is easier to produce, renewable, and has negligible impact on the environment. The fact is that under the presidency of Obama, clean energy use in this country has blossomed: With solar capacity up 577% since 2011 and wind energy surging in equally high measures, we are seeing real change in the use of clean energy, as well as in the general public’s use of and attitude towards it. In 2015, 15 states generated at least ten percent of their energy from wind generators, which is a massive increase, and a huge achievement for the sector- this is a figure that is only increasing with each passing year, and one that shows no sign of decline, despite who is currently president. &nbsp; <br />&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>Trepidation in The Green Energy Sector</strong></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Whilst clean energy companies can insure against bad business decisions, the weather, and all manner of other things, what a company cannot insure against is a President that does not support them. And many working within the sector are apprehensive about what a Trump Presidency will mean for the industry.<br /><br />However the good news is that the market, as well as many Republicans, actually favor green energy. From a republican point of view, the rise of green energy isn’t just about saving the planet: it is a question of simple economics. As production increases, and the technology behind them continues to improve, turbines and solar panels are plummeting in cost, making them an affordable option for both towns and cities, as well as for energy-conscious individuals that want to generate their own power. Clean energy options make it easier for states to ensure both their state buildings, and low income housing that they support financially, have access to the energy they need at a considerably lower cost. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />The good news is that whilst federal policy, and federal support, is important, we should not underestimate the value of both state and individual power. Meaning that the impact Trump’s vocal policy decisions have on the industry may well be negligible. State and city legislators are seeing the value of green energy in their own towns and cities on a daily basis: they are also seeing the consequences of climate change and the impact that this is having on their people locally. Whilst President elect Trump may oppose the green energy industry, this doesn’t have to be an obstacle for the sector, provided that individuals continue to support the green energy sector, and encourage their city and state decision makers to do the same.</div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">References</span></strong></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">“Trump inherits robust clean energy movement”,&nbsp;<em>AMI News Wire</em>,&nbsp;<a href="https://aminewswire.com/stories/511048131-trump-inherits-robust-clean-energy-movement">https://aminewswire.com/stories/511048131-trump-inherits-robust-clean-energy-movement</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">“Here’s why the clean energy industry is hopeful about Donald Trump”,<em>&nbsp;Fortune</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://fortune.com/2016/11/28/clean-green-renewable-solar-wind-energy-industry-donald-trump/">http://fortune.com/2016/11/28/clean-green-renewable-solar-wind-energy-industry-donald-trump/</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">“A list of America’s fastest growing green energy companies”,&nbsp;<em>Green Tech Media</em>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/americas-fastest-growing-cleantech-companies">https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/americas-fastest-growing-cleantech-companies</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">“Business insurance”,&nbsp;,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.quotezone.co.uk/business-insurance.htm">http://www.quotezone.co.uk/business-insurance.htm</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">“Trump’s first 100 days: Climate and Energy”,&nbsp;<em>Scientific American</em>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-first-100-days-climate-and-energy/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-first-100-days-climate-and-energy/</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">“Is Renewable Energy Trump-proof?”,&nbsp;<em>Take Part,</em>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/11/16/renewable-energy-trump-proof">http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/11/16/renewable-energy-trump-proof</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">“Trump could reverse ‘dramatic’ progress on clean energy, experts fear”,&nbsp;<em>The Guardian</em>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/clean-energy-donald-trump-climate-policies-reversals">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/clean-energy-donald-trump-climate-policies-reversals</a></div><div style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">“Republican Party on Energy and Oil”,&nbsp;<em>On the Issues</em>,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Energy_+_Oil.htm">http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Energy_+_Oil.htm</a></div><div><br /></div></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-7921166149723256822017-01-11T14:15:00.003-05:002017-01-11T14:15:21.981-05:00GUILTY! Volkswagen Pays Massive Fine in Cheater Scandal; Company Officials Indicted<div class="pr-info" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: auto; padding-bottom: 10px;"><div class="urgency-state" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left;"><br /></div><div class="urgency-state" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left;"><br /></div><div class="urgency-state" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left;">[from the U.S. Department of Justice]</div><div class="urgency-state" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left;"><br /></div><div class="urgency-state" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left;"><br /></div><div class="urgency-state" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left;"><br /></div><div class="urgency-state" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left;">&nbsp; FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</div><div class="field field--name-field-pr-date field--type-datetime field--label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: right; margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="date-display-single" content="2017-01-11T00:00:00-05:00" datatype="xsd:dateTime" property="dc:date" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Wednesday, January 11, 2017</span></div></div></div></div><h1 id="node-title" style="background-image: none; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 1.3em; margin: 0.25em 0px 1em; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">Volkswagen AG Agrees to Plead Guilty and Pay $4.3 Billion in Criminal and Civil Penalties; Six Volkswagen Executives and Employees are Indicted in Connection with Conspiracy to Cheat U.S. Emissions Tests</h1><div class="field field--name-field-pr-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(109, 109, 109); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><div class="field__items" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field__item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><root style="box-sizing: border-box;"></root><br /><div class="rtecenter" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: center;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">VW to Pay $2.8 Billion Criminal Fine in Guilty Plea and $1.5 Billion Settlement of Civil Environmental, Customs and Financial Violations; Monitor to Be Appointed to Oversee the Parent Company&nbsp;</span></span></b></div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">Volkswagen AG (VW) has agreed to plead guilty to three criminal felony counts and pay a $2.8 billion criminal penalty as a result of the company’s long-running scheme to sell approximately 590,000 diesel vehicles in the U.S. by using a defeat device to cheat on emissions tests mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and lying and obstructing justice to further the scheme, the Justice Department announced today.</div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">In separate civil resolutions of environmental, customs and financial claims, VW has agreed to pay $1.5 billion. This includes EPA’s claim for civil penalties against VW in connection with VW’s importation and sale of these cars, as well as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claims for customs fraud. In addition, the EPA agreement requires injunctive relief to prevent future violations. The agreements also resolve alleged violations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).</span></span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">The Criminal Case:</b></div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">VW is charged with and has agreed to plead guilty to participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and VW’s U.S. customers and to violate the Clean Air Act by lying and misleading the EPA and U.S. customers about whether certain VW, Audi and Porsche branded diesel vehicles complied with U.S. emissions standards, using cheating software to circumvent the U.S. testing process and concealing material facts about its cheating from U.S. regulators. VW is also charged with obstruction of justice for destroying documents related to the scheme, and with a separate crime of importing these cars into the U.S. by means of false statements about the vehicles’ compliance with emissions limits. Under the terms of the plea agreement, which must be accepted by the court, VW will plead guilty to all these crimes, will be on probation for three years, will be under an independent corporate compliance monitor who will oversee the company for at least three years, and agrees to fully cooperate in the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation and prosecution of individuals responsible for these crimes.</div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">In addition, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Michigan returned an indictment today charging six VW executives and employees for their roles in the nearly 10-year conspiracy. Heinz-Jakob Neusser, 56; Jens Hadler, 50; Richard Dorenkamp, 68; Bernd Gottweis, 69; Oliver Schmidt, 48; and Jürgen Peter, 59, all of Germany, are charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, defraud VW’s U.S. customers and violate the Clean Air Act by making false representations to regulators and the public about the ability of VW’s supposedly “clean diesel” vehicles to comply with U.S. emissions requirements. The indictment also charges Dorenkamp, Neusser, Schmidt and Peter with Clean Air Act violations and charges Neusser, Gottweis, Schmidt and Peter with wire fraud counts. This case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Sean F. Cox of the Eastern District of Michigan.</div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Schmidt was arrested on Jan. 7, 2017, in Miami during a visit to the United States and appeared in federal court there on Monday. The other defendants are believed to presently reside in Germany.</span></span></div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">Today’s announcement was made by Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles, Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Acting Deputy Secretary Russell C. Deyo for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade of the Eastern District of Michigan, Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.</div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">“Volkswagen’s attempts to dodge emissions standards and import falsely certified vehicles into the country represent an egregious violation of our nation’s environmental, consumer protection and financial laws,” said Attorney General Lynch. “Today’s actions reflect the Justice Department’s steadfast commitment to defending consumers, protecting our environment and our financial system and holding individuals and companies accountable for corporate wrongdoing. In the days ahead, we will continue to examine Volkswagen’s attempts to mislead consumers and deceive the government. And we will continue to pursue the individuals responsible for orchestrating this damaging conspiracy.”</span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">“When Volkswagen broke the law, EPA stepped in to hold them accountable and address the pollution they caused,” said EPA Administrator McCarthy. “EPA’s fundamental and indispensable role becomes all too clear when companies evade laws that protect our health. The American public depends on a strong and active EPA to deliver clean air protections, and that is exactly what we have done.”</span></span></div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">“This wasn’t simply the action of some faceless, multinational corporation,” said Deputy Attorney General Yates. “This conspiracy involved flesh-and-blood individuals who used their positions within Volkswagen to deceive both regulators and consumers. From the start of this investigation, we’ve been committed to ensuring that those responsible for criminal activity are held accountable. We’ve followed the evidence—from the showroom to the boardroom—and it brought us to the people whose indictments we’re announcing today.”</div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">“Americans expect corporations to operate honestly and provide accurate information,” said Deputy Director McCabe. “Volkswagen’s data deception defrauded the U.S. government, violated the Clean Air Act and eroded consumer trust. This case sends a clear message to corporations, no matter how big or small, that if you lie and disregard rules that protect consumers and the environment, you will be caught and held accountable.”</span></span></div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">“Blatant violations of U.S. customs and environmental laws will not be tolerated, and this case reinforces that,” said Acting Deputy Secretary Deyo. “These actions put our economy, consumers and citizens at risk, and the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to take every step necessary to protect the American people.”</div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">According to the indictment, the individuals occupied the following positions within the company:</div><ol style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px;"><li class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">Heinz-Jakob Neusser</b>: from July 2013 until September 2015, Neusser worked for VW as head of Development for VW Brand and was also on the management board for VW Brand. From October 2011 until July 2013, Neusser served as the head of Engine Development for VW.</div></li><li class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">Jens Hadler</b>: from May 2007 until March 2011, Hadler worked for VW as head of Engine Development for VW.<b style="box-sizing: border-box;"></b></div></li><li class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">Richard Dorenkamp</b>: from 2003 until December 2013, Dorenkamp worked for VW as the head of VW’s Engine Development After-Treatment Department in Wolfsburg, Germany. From 2006 until 2013, Dorenkamp led a team of engineers that developed the first diesel engine that was designed to meet the new, tougher emissions standards in the United States.</div></li><li class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bernd Gottweis</b>: from 2007 until October 2014, Gottweis worked for VW as a supervisor with responsibility for Quality Management and Product Safety.</div></li><li class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">Oliver Schmidt</b>: from 2012 through February 2015, Schmidt was the General Manager in charge of the Environment and Engineering Office, located in Auburn Hills, Michigan. From February 2015 through September 2015, Schmidt returned to VW headquarters to work directly for Neusser, including on emissions issues.</div></li><li class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;">Jürgen Peter</b>: Peter worked in the VW Quality Management and Product Safety Group from 1990 until the present. From March 2015 until July 2015, Peter was one of the VW liaisons between the regulatory agencies and VW.</div></li></ol><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">According to the charging documents and statement of facts filed with the court, in 2006, VW engineers began to design a new diesel engine to meet stricter U.S. emissions standards that would take effect by model year 2007. This new engine would be the cornerstone of a new project to sell diesel vehicles in the United States that would be marketed to buyers as “clean diesel,” a project that was an important strategic goal for VW’s management. When the co-conspirators realized that they could not design a diesel engine that would both meet the stricter NOx emissions standards and attract sufficient customer demand in the U.S. market, they decided they would use a software function to cheat standard U.S. emissions tests.</div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">VW engineers working under Dorenkamp and Hadler designed and implemented a software to recognize whether a vehicle was undergoing standard U.S. emissions testing on a dynamometer or it was being driven on the road under normal driving conditions. The software accomplished this by recognizing the standard published drive cycles. Based on these inputs, if the vehicle’s software detected that it was being tested, the vehicle performed in one mode, which satisfied U.S. NOx emissions standards. If the software detected that the vehicle was not being tested, it operated in a different mode, in which the vehicle’s emissions control systems were reduced substantially, causing the vehicle to emit NOx up to 40 times higher than U.S. standards.</div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">Disagreements over the direction of the project were articulated at a meeting over which Hadler presided, and which Dorenkamp attended. Hadler authorized Dorenkamp to proceed with the project knowing that only the use of the defeat device software would enable VW diesel vehicles to pass U.S. emissions tests. Starting with the first model year 2009 of VW’s new “clean diesel” engine through model year 2016, Dorenkamp, Neusser, Hadler and their co-conspirators installed, or caused to be installed, the defeat device software into the vehicles imported and sold in the United States. In order to sell their “clean diesel” vehicles in the United States, the co-conspirators lied to the EPA about the existence of their test-cheating software, hiding it from the EPA, CARB, VW customers and the U.S. public. Dorenkamp, Neusser, Hadler, Gottweis, Schmidt, Peter and their co-conspirators then marketed, and caused to be marketed, VW diesel vehicles to the U.S. public as “clean diesel” and environmentally-friendly.</div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">Around 2012, hardware failures developed in certain of the diesel vehicles. VW engineers believed the increased stress on the exhaust system from being driven in the “dyno mode” could be the cause of the hardware failures. In July 2012, VW engineers met with Neusser and Gottweis to explain what they believed to be the cause of the hardware failures and explained the defeat device. Gottweis and Neusser each encouraged further concealment of the software. In 2014, the co-conspirators perfected their cheating software by starting the vehicle in “street mode,” and, when the defeat device realized the vehicle was being tested, switching to the “dyno mode.” To increase the ability of the vehicle’s software to recognize that it was being tested on the dynamometer, the VW engineers activated a “steering wheel angle recognition feature.” With these alterations, it was believed the stress on the exhaust system would be reduced because the engine would not be operating for as long in “dyno mode.” The new function was installed in existing vehicles through software updates. The defendants and other co-conspirators falsely represented, and caused to be represented, to U.S. regulators, U.S. customers and others that the software update was intended to improve durability and emissions issues in the vehicles when, in fact, they knew it was used to more quickly deactivate emission control systems when the vehicle was not undergoing emissions tests.</div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">After years of VW selling their “clean diesel” vehicles in the United States that had the cheating software, in March 2014, West Virginia University’s Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions published the results of a study commissioned by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). The ICCT study identified substantial discrepancies in the NOx emissions from certain VW vehicles when tested on the road compared to when these vehicles were undergoing EPA and CARB standard drive cycle tests on a dynamometer. Rather than tell the truth, VW employees, including Neusser, Gottweis, Schmidt and Peter, pursued a strategy to disclose as little as possible – to continue to hide the existence of the software from U.S. regulators, U.S. customers and the U.S. public.</div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">Following the ICCT study, CARB, in coordination with the EPA, attempted to work with VW to determine the cause for the higher NOx emissions in VW diesel vehicles when being driven on the road as opposed to on the dynamometer undergoing standard emissions test cycles. To do this, CARB, in coordination with the EPA, repeatedly asked VW questions that became increasingly more specific and detailed, and tested the vehicles themselves. In implementing their strategy of disclosing as little as possible, Neusser, Gottweis, Schmidt, Peter and their co-conspirators provided EPA and CARB with testing results, data, presentations and statements in an attempt to make it appear that there were innocent mechanical and technological problems to blame, while secretly knowing that the primary reason for the discrepancy was their cheating software that was installed in every VW diesel vehicle sold in the United States. The co-conspirators continued this back-and-forth with the EPA and CARB for over 18 months, obstructing the regulators’ attempts to uncover the truth.</div><div class="Default" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;">The charges in the indictment are merely accusations and each defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.</div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The case was investigated by the FBI and EPA-CID. The prosecution and corporate investigation are being handled by Securities and Financial Fraud Unit Chief Benjamin D. Singer and Trial Attorneys David Fuhr, Alison Anderson<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #1f497d;">,&nbsp;</span>Christopher Fenton and Gary Winters of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section; Trial Attorney Jennifer Blackwell of the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Environmental Crimes Section; and from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, Criminal Division Chief Mark Chutkow and White Collar Crime Unit Chief John K. Neal and Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy J. Wyse. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs also assisted in the case. The Justice Department also extends its thanks to the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Braunschweig, Germany.</span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><b style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The Civil Resolutions:</span></span></b></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The first civil settlement resolves EPA’s remaining claims against six VW-related entities (including Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and Porsche AG) currently pending in the multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California. EPA’s complaint alleges that VW violated the Clean Air Act by selling approximately 590,000 cars that the United States alleges are equipped with defeat devices and, during normal operation and use, emit pollution significantly in excess of EPA-compliant levels. VW has agreed to pay $1.45 billion to resolve EPA’s civil penalty claims, as well as the civil penalty claim of CBP described below. The consent decree resolving the Clean Air Act claims also resolves EPA’s remaining claim in the complaint for injunctive relief to prevent future violations by requiring VW to undertake a number of corporate governance reforms and perform in-use testing of its vehicles using a portable emissions measurement system of the same type used to catch VW’s cheating in the first place. Today’s settlement is in addition the historic $14.7 billion settlement that addressed the 2.0 liter cars on the road and associated environmental harm announced in June 2016, and $1 billion settlement that addressed the 3.0 liter cars on the road and associated environmental harm announced in December 2016, which together included nearly $3 billion for environmental mitigation projects.</span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">A second civil settlement resolves civil fraud claims asserted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) against VW entities. VW entities violated criminal and civil customs laws by knowingly submitting to CBP material false statements and omitting material information, over multiple years, with the intent of deceiving or misleading CBP concerning the admissibility of vehicles into the United States. CBP enforces U.S. customs laws as well as numerous laws on behalf of other governmental agencies related to health, safety, and border security. At the time of importation, VW falsely represented to CBP that each of the nearly 590,000 imported vehicles complied with all applicable environmental laws, knowing those representations to be untrue. CBP’s relationship with the importing community is one based on trust, and this resolution demonstrates that CBP will not tolerate abrogation of importer responsibilities and schemes to defraud the revenue of the United States. The $1.45 billion paid under the EPA settlement also resolves CBP’s claims.</span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">In a third settlement, VW has agreed to pay $50 million in civil penalties for alleged violations of FIRREA. The Justice Department alleged that a VW entity supported the sales and leasing of certain VW vehicles, including the defeat-device vehicles, by offering competitive financing terms by purchasing from dealers certain automobile retail installment contracts (i.e. loans) and leases entered into by customers that purchased or leased certain VW vehicles, as well as dealer floorplan loans. These financing arrangements were primarily collateralized by the vehicles underlying the loan and lease transactions. The department alleged that certain of these loans, leases and floorplan financings were pooled together to create asset-backed securities and that federally insured financial institutions purchased certain notes in these securities. Today’s FIRREA resolution is part of the department’s ongoing efforts to deter wrongdoers from using the financial markets to facilitate their fraud and to ensure the stability of the nation’s financial system.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">Except where based on admissions by VW, the claims resolved by the civil agreements are allegations only.</span></span></div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #171e24; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13px; margin-bottom: 1em;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;">The civil settlements were handled by the Environmental and Natural Resources Division’s Environmental Enforcement Section, with assistance from the EPA; the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch; and CBP.</span></span></div><div><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot; , serif;"><br /></span></span></div></div></div></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-83418230060475225882016-12-20T16:22:00.001-05:002016-12-20T16:22:17.187-05:00EPA Takes First (Cautious) Step to Crack Down on Smog from Big TrucksThe U.S. EPA today took a cautious first step to crack down on smog-forming emissions from big trucks.<br /><br />The agency responded to a petition from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a number of other state and local governments that have identified big diesel trucks as a major source of ozone-forming emissions. &nbsp;These states and localities are begging EPA to set tougher standards to limit smog-forming nitrogen oxides emissions from new big trucks.<br /><br /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Here is EPA's notice and a little background&nbsp;<a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/petitions-revised-nox-standards-highway-heavy-duty">EPA takes step to deal with big truck smog</a>&nbsp;.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">We applaud the EPA’s decision to move forward, and we encourage the new Trump administration to embrace this initiative as its own. &nbsp;We have read comments from both the President-elect and his choice to head the EPA saying they want to focus on efforts to provide clean air.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Tougher truck pollution standards would do exactly that. &nbsp;They would bring cleaner air and better health nationwide. Fewer NOx emissions would not only mean less smog but less fine-particle soot. &nbsp;So, fewer asthma attacks, less premature death.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">Big trucks are among the largest under-controlled sources of smog. &nbsp;The EPA last set truck pollution standards when Bill Clinton was President. So it has literally been 16 years since standards have been tightened and technology has improved since then.&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">We think an update of truck pollution standards is long overdue, particularly since big diesel trucks remain an important source of ozone. &nbsp;As you probably know, some industries and states have complained about tougher national ozone air quality standards set last year. &nbsp;New truck standards would be an important tool to help states either meet or make real progress towards meeting those critical health standards.&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">It is regrettable that state and local governments had to push the EPA to do something it should have already done.&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-30879162149360430372016-12-08T10:54:00.002-05:002016-12-08T10:54:53.170-05:00Scott Pruitt: Beware the Lessons of History — and Read up on Anne Gorsuch Burford<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">President-Elect Trump’s appointment of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency vividly brings back to mind an equally controversial EPA head from a different era. &nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Thirty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan appointed Anne Gorsuch to run the agency.&nbsp; Like Trump, Reagan had inveighed against what he viewed as excessive federal regulation. &nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">''Government is not the solution to our problem,'' President Reagan told the nation in his first inaugural address.&nbsp; ''Government is the problem.’'&nbsp; And a prime target was the EPA, which, among other things, had set national smog standards detested by the oil industry. &nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Enter Anne Gorsuch. &nbsp;</span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Like Pruitt, Gorsuch was a lawyer and elected official from a state (in her case, Colorado) that had clashed with what it saw as a federal government that was putting too many limits on industry.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3418-2004Jul21.html"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3418-2004Jul21.html</span></a></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Gorsuch, later Burford following a re-marriage, was determined to carry out President Reagan’s agenda and rein in the regulators.&nbsp; She was thwarted in an initial effort to re-write and basically neuter the Clean Air Act after bureaucratic leakers shared the plans with reporters of that era like me.&nbsp; &nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">But she was undeterred, slashing the agency’s budget and bringing enforcement of environmental laws to a virtual standstill.&nbsp; (In one infamous episode, she personally told a New Mexico refiner that it could ignore federal standards on lead in gasoline because she was going to relax them anyway.&nbsp; I still recall the horrified tone of the EPA bureaucrat who was in the room at the time and helped me make the episode public.)</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Ultimately, Burford took the fall for the administration's growing environmental scandals.&nbsp; She refused to turn over to Congress documents relating to an investigation of the Superfund toxic waste program.&nbsp; But when the scandals wouldn’t go away, the White House released the documents and Burford was forced to resign after a mere 22 months in office.&nbsp; &nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span><span style="font-kerning: none;">By then, the Reagan administration was starting to appreciate that the public really did want effective laws and standards to protect public health and the environment -- and that it wanted strong enforcement of them.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">More than a year later, in 1984, I interviewed Burford at her home for a <i>Regardies</i> magazine profile.&nbsp; She was a sad, bitter woman who felt cast away by a President and White House that she admired and thought she was serving. &nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Yes, she said, there was a secret, face-saving deal that would give her an appointment to an obscure federal advisory panel on oceans and the atmosphere. &nbsp; But “It’s a nothing burger,” she snarled. (An on-the-record comment that, when published, prompted then-CNN correspondent Daniel Schorr to call me and ask “Was she drunk when she talked with you?”) Ultimately that didn’t work out either.&nbsp; She eventually returned to Colorado and died of cancer at the age of 62.</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">What was her government experience worth to her? &nbsp; Perhaps a clue is her own published memoirs, which can be bought on Amazon today for a mere penny.&nbsp; <span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Are-Tough-Enough-Anne-Burford/dp/007008940X">https://www.amazon.com/Are-Tough-Enough-Anne-Burford/dp/007008940X</a></span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span><span style="font-kerning: none;">Some of the issues may have evolved from those of the Reagan era, but I believe the public does still want strong enforcement of effective national laws and standards to protect health and the environment.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br />Mr. Pruitt, if I were you, I would take note. &nbsp;</div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 13px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-71802455508893604032016-11-16T13:54:00.004-05:002016-11-18T08:36:21.103-05:00R.I.P. Leon G. Billings, Legislative Lion and Backstage Author of Clean Air and Clean Water ActsClean Air Watch is most sad to report the passing of our former boss and colleague, Leon G. Billings, who suffered a stroke earlier this week. &nbsp;You may recall he recently co-authored a piece we published here&nbsp;<a href="http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2016/09/guest-post-setting-record-straight-on.html">Setting the Record Straight on Clean Air</a>&nbsp;.<br /><br />He was a true legislative lion -- and in many respects author of so much of modern environmental policy that has come under recent attack. Our prayers and thoughts go out to his family.<br /><br /><a name='more'></a>Below is a little basic biography. &nbsp;We expect newspaper obituaries in the near future. [Here, for example, is from Associated Press:&nbsp;<a href="http://strib.mn/2fxYxR5">Leon Billings obituary</a>] &nbsp;and this wonderful piece in the New York Times is not to be missed:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/leon-billings-dead.html?_r=0">New York Times obit on Leon</a>&nbsp;.<br /><br /><blockquote class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;" type="cite"><h4 class="" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 0px 0px 0.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong class="" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0); border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Leon&nbsp;Billings</strong></h4><div class="" style="border: 0px; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Leon G. Billings, majority Senate staff author of the basic Federal environmental legislation, has had a 50-year career in politics and public policy. As the first staff director of the Senate environment subcommittee, he was primarily responsible for the Clean Air Act and amendments from 1967 through 1977 and the clean water amendments from 1966 through 1977, as well as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, key provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the underlying liability authority for Superfund. Billings and minority counsel Thomas C. Jorling crafted the unprecedented changes in Federal laws that make these environmental statutes continue to be unique 50 years after their enactment.</span></div><div class="" style="border: 0px; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Billings served as the environment advisor to Senator Edmund S. Muskie, and continued as Chief of Staff to Senator and Secretary of State Muskie. He served as Executive Director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the 1982 cycle, and was elected to the Maryland Legislature, where he served from 1991 through 2002.</span></div><div class="" style="border: 0px; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">After he left Federal service, Billings created the Clean Air Trust and the Clean Air Trust Education Fund, served as President of the Edmund S. Muskie Foundation, managed a “Politics” program for the University of Southern California as an adjunct professor, and created the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators.</span></div><div class="" style="border: 0px; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Billings has lectured on environmental law and American politics for nearly 50 years at universities across America as well as a variety of other audiences. He has been a consultant to the National Democratic Institute’s programs in China, Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka. He is President of Leon G. Billings, LLC, which advises clients on environmental and conservation policy and politics.</span></div></blockquote><div><div class="" style="border: 0px; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></span></div></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-89271156326769880812016-11-11T12:04:00.003-05:002016-11-19T17:08:22.246-05:00UPDATE: Trump transition guy withdraws over lobbying restrictions <div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">[This earlier post has been updated, below.]</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">As we all know the transition is in full swing. It caught our eye that one of the key figures — Michael Catanzaro — has been tasked with the “energy independence” portfolio.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">He is being described, correctly, as an energy “lobbyist.” &nbsp;<a href="http://nyti.ms/2eKpUmV">http://nyti.ms/2eKpUmV</a></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">But he is much more: He has worked for Senator Inhofe, former House Speaker Boehner, and even as a a political appointee within the Bush EPA and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. &nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2fXf56T">http://bit.ly/2fXf56T</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2g2NGiT">http://bit.ly/2g2NGiT</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2fE3wgT">http://bit.ly/2fE3wgT</a></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">(You will note he cut his D.C. teeth as a reporter for the late “Prince of Darkness,” Robert Novak.)</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">Clean Air Watch likely would not agree with him on much. &nbsp; But don’t write him off as a mere lobbyist or underestimate his understanding of D.C.<br /><br />UPDATE: Catanzaro withdrew because of Trump lobbying restrictions, according to Politico&nbsp;<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/lobbyists-leave-trump-transition-team-ethics-rule-231641">http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/lobbyists-leave-trump-transition-team-ethics-rule-231641</a></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-47387279210999053572016-10-20T09:46:00.002-04:002016-10-20T09:46:46.281-04:00Guest Post: Conserving Energy through the 'Internet of Things'<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><i><b>[From time to time, Clean Air Watch publishes guest posts we believe are of general interest. &nbsp;We hope you enjoy this piece by Beth Laurel.]</b></i></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b><i>Using Automation and the IoT to Conserve Energy</i></b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">There has, undoubtedly, been tremendous progress in society’s attention and recognition of climate change. We are within the midst of a turbulent time, fighting an uphill battle against development, pollution, well-funded fos</span><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black;">sil fuel companies and out-of-touch government bureaucracy. The possibilities afforded by IoT technologies, however, have begun to allow everyday individuals to explore new avenues for <a href="http://phys.org/news/2016-09-energy-efficient-comfort-smart-ceiling-fans.html"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(17, 85, 204); color: #1155cc;">improving energy efficiency in their own homes</span></a>. </span><span style="font-kerning: none;">Not only do these systems aim to improve the user's ability to reduce energy expenditure, they are also designed to connect with each other through a single easy-to-use interface, creating a more complete picture of consumption overall.&nbsp;</span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b><i>Applying the Internet of Things to Energy</i></b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">“<a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/internet-of-things"><span style="color: #1155cc; line-height: normal;">The Internet of Things</span></a>” is a term used to describe a higher level of connectivity between various devices. This central network can apply to just about any object that is capable of a connection, and trends in the IoT have resulted in tremendous advances for all types of technologies. Everything from HVAC systems to refrigerators are now available as connected components of the same system.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b><i>Home Automation Advantages</i></b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Connected home devices are proving new models for consumer engagement in energy use.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">With wireless systems and products installed everyday people can save energy and optimize their home's internal processes, reducing power lost to vampire loads, lighting and electronic devices left on unnecessarily and inefficient home heating strategies.</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="font-kerning: none;">“Smart” home products such as <a href="http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-smart-led-light-bulbs/"><span style="color: #1155cc; line-height: normal;">automated light bulbs</span></a> and <a href="http://www.vivint.com/products/element"><span style="color: #1155cc; line-height: normal;">Wifi thermostats</span></a> are already familiar to many. Other systems include motion-sensor lights that turn on when the homeowner is in a specific room or area. Programmable, motorized window fixtures to keep out the sun’s hot rays. Sophisticated heat pump systems that transfer heat from an unused room to one that is in use. When all of these devices “come together” they can play a pivotal role in reversing wasteful patterns.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">By getting to know one of the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelwolf/2016/05/24/for-smart-home-startups-its-no-longer-about-platforms-but-simplicity/#35000e91734a"><span style="color: #1155cc; line-height: normal;">home technology platforms</span></a> currently on the market, it isn't difficult to rig up a network that will control everything through a single unified interface. Through an app like Apple’s latest called simply “<a href="http://www.apple.com/ios/home/"><span style="color: #1155cc; line-height: normal;">Home</span></a>”, heating, cooling and additional settings can be pre-programmed ahead of time or remotely. Devices will “learn” to </span><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(85, 85, 85); color: #555555;">automatically react to your daily routines and preferences. In apps, it’s also possible to see the systems and products that suck the most power, and the times of day it is most expensive.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><b><i>Larger City-Wide Upgrades</i></b></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Though the vast majority of these changes have been implemented on a residential basis, developers are implementing IoT advancements to <a href="http://energy.gov/eere/articles/energy-and-transportation-departments-commit-supporting-cities-future"><span style="color: #1155cc; line-height: normal;">city-wide systems</span></a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"> as well</span><span style="font-kerning: none;">. Many basic energy saving installations are based around mechanical facets, such as skillful city-planning and the creative use of certain colors to reflect sunlight and harness rays as energy. In addition to these changes, experts are also beginning to place electrical optimization options up on a larger scale. Integrating data gathered from smart energy meters and the larger connected grid system helps determine what is needed to establish municipal <a href="http://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/blog/IoT-Agenda/IoT-for-energy-and-water-Utilities-role-in-the-internet-of-things"><span style="color: #1155cc; line-height: normal;">utility standards</span></a> for more intelligent energy use. Though such systems start out small on a homeowner level, larger strategic implementations can mean expansive energy savings for apartment complexes, shopping centers, towns and even larger cities.&nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal; min-height: 12px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(64, 64, 64); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 11px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Experts optimistically project that by reaching such a collective usage of the IoT, it will be possible to make tremendous strides in reducing the world's carbon footprint.</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black;">The underpinning of a healthy climate system lies in the entanglement of people and the environment by long webs of economic, cultural, and environmental connectivity, binding us into one all-embracing social-ecological system. </span><span style="font-kerning: none;">Today the Internet, the “information superhighway”, is on its way towards helping us better harness the natural resources upon which we depend despite ever-diminishing supply. In the future this knowledge will become a tool as powerful as any at our disposal. &nbsp;</span></div><div><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-kerning: none;"><em style="color: #17171b; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1f497d; font-family: &quot;arial&quot; , &quot;helvetica&quot; , sans-serif &quot;important&quot;; font-size: 13px;">Beth is a Midwestern blogger from Lansing, Michigan. A graduate of DePaul University, she’s passionate about covering updates in the clean technology space and other innovations driving the renewable energy movement forward. She is a strong advocate of the “maker movement” and self-sufficient, green living.</span></em></span></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-48046393314278394332016-10-12T12:01:00.001-04:002016-10-12T12:01:38.066-04:00UPDATE on Failed CASAC CoupYou may recall a few weeks back we reported on an industry effort to put a pal on a key EPA science panel&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2dL0lEd">attempted CASAC Coup</a>&nbsp;.<br /><br />We are happy to report the coup attempt failed. <br /><br />Despite industry pressure, the EPA appointed&nbsp;<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Donna&nbsp;</span>Kenski of the&nbsp;<span style="background-color: white;">Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium. &nbsp;A very good choice of a very well-qualified candidate.</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">As you might guess, the polluter crowd is crying. &nbsp;<a href="http://centerforregulatorysolutions.org/crs-epa-ignores-stakeholder-concerns-nominates-insider-to-serve-on-casac/">Whiners</a>&nbsp; W-a-a-a-a-h.</span></span>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-36797532885652843152016-09-14T12:57:00.000-04:002016-09-14T12:58:56.719-04:00Guest Post: A Response from the Authors of Struggling for Air <i>[Editor's note: We recently published a critique of the book <a href="http://amzn.to/2cfTP5q">Struggling for Air</a>&nbsp;by two key staff authors of the 1970 Clean Air Act:&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2cpbGf3">Billings-Jorling letter</a>&nbsp;. We are pleased today to publish a response, below, by the book's authors. We would encourage you to read the book -- and the subsequent correspondence.]</i><br /><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">September 13, 2016</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Dear Mr. Billings and Mr. Jorling,</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We were very sorry to hear of your dissatisfaction with <i>Struggling for Air</i>, as we are great admirers of your work and of the major public health victories you made possible. While we respect your opinions, we do feel that several of your criticisms are the result of misunderstandings regarding the content and intent of our book.</span></span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For example, we do not claim that the Clean Air Act has an explicit “grandfathering clause.” (That phrase appears only twice in the book, and one of those times is in a quotation from Senator Clark.) Instead, we argue that the Act<i> engages in the practice of grandfathering</i>, which it undeniably does. As the term is commonly used in regulatory policy literature, grandfathering means subjecting facilities that existed before a law’s passage to laxer rules than those constructed after the law’s passage. In the Clean Air Act, new sources are subject to two kinds of regulation for criteria pollutants: federal performance standards and state implementation plans. Existing sources, on the other hand, are subject only to state implementation plans. They are exempt from federal performance standards. This differential treatment is a form of grandfathering, as many legal and economic scholars have pointed out over the years.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Additionally, rather than giving “’short shrift” to the modification provisions of the Clean Air Act, we spend an entire chapter discussing them. (See <i>Struggling for Air, </i>pages 55-81.) In that chapter, we acknowledge that “in theory, treating modified sources as ‘new’ could have served as a de facto limit on the duration of grandfathering, preventing old plants from permanently avoiding compliance with federal performance standards.” (Pages 55-56.) But we find that, due to continued controversy over the meaning of certain statutory terms, the provisions were not particularly effective. (Pages 58-59.) We do not “exonerate EPA” for its role in creating these implementation difficulties. Instead, we acknowledge that the modification provisions’ failure to bring existing sources under control was largely a result of EPA’s “repeated capitulation to trade associations on questions of statutory interpretation,” rather than inherent problems with the statute itself. (Page 78.)</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Similarly, we do not “ignore role of State Implementation Plans.” At the start of Chapter 5, we acknowledge the role that lawmakers expected these plans to play in regulating existing stationary sources:&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-left: 18px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">[E]ven if existing sources weren’t subject to federal performance standards, they were hardly exempt from <i>all </i>regulatory control. The Clean Air Act’s most prominent element was a nationally uniform system of ambient air quality standards, the NAAQS, which were to be set at a level adequate to protect the public health. Thus, lawmakers expected that any dangers posed by emissions from a state’s existing sources would be addressed as part of the state’s plan for achieving the NAAQS.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-left: 72px; min-height: 15px; text-indent: 3px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(Page 82.) But we find that, in practice, State Implementation Plans didn’t successfully control many existing source whose emissions endangered public health, for two reasons:</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-left: 18px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">First, many states simply failed to meet the statutory deadline for complying with ambient standards. Indeed, significant swaths of the country are still out of compliance for certain pollutants. . . . Second, the NAAQS system didn’t adequately account for the interstate nature of air pollution, whereby emissions originating in one state can cause the bulk of their harm in another. As a result, some states managed to achieve the ambient standards while leaving their most-polluting sources completely unregulated—not because the sources didn’t endanger public health but because their harms were felt in another jurisdiction.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(Pages 82-23.) As in our discussion of modification provisions, we are careful to acknowledge that EPA bears much of the responsibility for these NAAQS implementation problems. In particular, we highlight the agency’s initial, misguided endorsement of tall stacks and other “dispersion enhancement techniques” as substitutes for actual emissions controls, as well as its longstanding refusal to address interstate pollution by using the Good Neighbor Provision that was added to the Clean Air Act in 1977. (Pages 83-88, 90-98.)</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Finally, we do not suggest that “Senator Muskie and his colleagues chose a health-based regulatory policy because they were ‘bribing’ their opponents.” The word “bribing” appears in a section of the book discussing the “public choice” theory of grandfathering, which provides that policymakers might rationally give existing sources an exemption from a new law in order to ease its passage. (Pages 40-41.) There is no mention of Senator Muskie in this section of the book. Furthermore, when we turn from describing legal scholars’ hypothetical justifications for grandfathering to the actual history of the Clean Air Act, we conclude that the Act does <i>not </i>fit the traditional “public choice” narrative. (Page 49-50.)</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We do speculate that industry’s clearly expressed opposition to national emission standards played some role in Congress’s 1967 decision to rely on health-based ambient standards for pollution control, but we also acknowledge Senator Muskie’s genuine belief that ambient standards would be more protective of public health. (Page 51.) And we explain that many other non-industry stakeholders shared this belief, including the American Medical Association. (Pages 51-52.)</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Ultimately, our aim in writing <i>Struggling for Air </i>was not to disparage the Clean Air Act or the dedicated people who crafted it and worked to secure its passage. On the contrary, we are great fans of the Act. As we note in the book, it has “yielded enormous dividends for the American public” over the past forty-five years, preventing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths. (Page 35.) At the Institute for Policy Integrity, we spend our days working to support the Act’s continued implementation—by petitioning EPA to issue new rules, commenting on proposed rules in hopes of making them stronger and more legally defensible, and defending finalized rules against unjustified legal attacks.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But no law is perfect. By exploring the origins and effects of what we believe to be the Clean Air Act’s flaws, we hoped to glean relevant insights for the policymakers who will craft future environmental laws and regulations. We deeply regret that this project has caused offense, but we also stand by its analysis and conclusions.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; min-height: 15px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">With best wishes,</span></span><br /><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Richard L. Revesz</span></span></div><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Jack Lienke</span></span></div><div><span style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-59770704413483192532016-09-09T09:51:00.001-04:002016-11-18T08:38:48.412-05:00Guest Post: Setting the Record Straight on the Clean Air Act<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 36px; min-height: 23px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">AN OPEN LETTER TO RICHARD REVESZ AND JACK LIENKE</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; white-space: pre;"> </span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">--by Leon G. Billings and Thomas C. Jorling</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>[Editor's note: a recent book by two academics,&nbsp;<a href="http://amzn.to/2cfTP5q">Struggling for Air</a>, was&nbsp;critical of the content and process associated with the writing of the 1970 Clean Air Act. &nbsp;The book has prompted the following open letter by two people intimately involved with the law's drafting. &nbsp;I should note that I worked for Mr. Billings for about a decade, some years after his federal service. &nbsp;He has never received sufficient credit for his service -- or for a law that has produced such dramatic success. (If it's so bad, why are the big polluters always trying to change it? See <a href="http://bit.ly/2azHubG">Dirty-AirBnB</a>.) &nbsp;But let the letter below speak for itself. &nbsp;UPDATE: About two months after this piece was published, Mr. Billings died of a stroke. See the following obituary in the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/leon-billings-dead.html?_r=0">New York Times obituary on Leon Billings</a>]</i></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-family: &quot;arial&quot;; font-size: 20px; line-height: normal;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Earlier this year, in a book entitled, <i>Struggling for Air</i>, the authors to whom this letter is addressed included observations, conclusions and innuendo that misrepresented the actions, questioned the motives and insulted the authors of the Clean Air Act of 1970.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Their allegations appear to be based on publications by academics who were not involved in the legislative process and had no access to the debates which shaped the Clean Air Act.&nbsp; The fundamental premise of <i>Struggling for Air,</i> that there was a “grandfather clause” in the law, has no basis in fact.&nbsp; It is simply false.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">&nbsp;As the principal staff authors of the 1970 Act, we believe it important to respond to set the record straight and to properly present the actions of the great men who we served.&nbsp; Please feel free to share this and to respond. &nbsp;Leon was the staff director for Senator Edmund S. Muskie from 1966-1978 and Tom was Minority Counsel for Senator John Sherman Cooper from 1968-1972. <i>[Note: Jorling was later New York State Environmental Commissioner under Governor Mario Cuomo.]&nbsp;</i></span></span></div><a name='more'></a><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; min-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="font-family: inherit; white-space: pre;"><i>[The letter to Revesz and Lienke begins here:]</i></span><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="font-family: inherit; white-space: pre;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">As staff authors of the legislation you discuss in <i>Struggling for Air</i>, we are writing this letter to correct some of the conclusions of your treatise. We appreciate the difficulty in trying to characterize the circumstances from which the Clean Air Act (CAA) evolved more than 40 years ago.&nbsp; Unfortunately, your interpretation of those circumstances and your explanation of the law are neither factually correct nor do they accurately reflect what that law requires. Not only do you assign unsupported motives to the authors of the Clean Air Act, but you also inaccurately describe the legislation and its political history. &nbsp;</span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Although you interviewed us prior to publishing your thesis, your thesis does not accurately present the content and perspective offered in that conversation.&nbsp; And you apparently did not interview others who were involved in the development of the 1970 amendments, conversations that might have protected you from mistakes described below. Many of the key Senators and staff involved in the 1967, 1970 and 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act are no longer with us. Therefore, it falls to us to correct the misrepresentations of their actions and their motivations.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Your paper reflects little understanding of the political dynamic of the period between 1967 and 1972 including the role of Congress and its relationship with the White House, the impact of the Viet Nam War on the Members of Congress, the relationship between environmental legislation and the 1968 Presidential contest, and the personal or partisan relationships between and among Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. It is unfortunate that these factors were not addressed before writing an unjustified indictment of the authors of the Clean Air Act.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You refer repeatedly to an alleged “grandfather clause” included in the 1970 legislation.&nbsp; There is no such “grandfather clause” nor was any provision which exempts any stationary sources of air pollution was ever included, debated or proposed in that law. For the record, there are two “grandfather” provisions in the Clean Air Act both of which were included in the 1967 amendments.&nbsp; When Congress preempted to the Federal government the authority to set auto emission standards, the California auto emissions program was “grandfathered.”&nbsp; In that same legislation Congress “grandfathered” the right of states and localities to set more stringent air pollution control rules than those established by the Federal government.&nbsp; Later, in 1977 the Senate adopted and the House accepted an amendment to allow a specific TVA coal-fired power plant to continue its use of tall stacks.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">&nbsp;While it is convenient to allege that existing stationary sources of air pollution were somehow “grandfathered” in 1970, the allegation is simply false. We challenge you to identify any such provision or any debate or amendment that might have suggested consideration of “exempting” existing sources of air pollution from regulation.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Your apparent fixation with some non-existent “grandfather clause” seems to be essential to making the case that Congress should have adopted “national emission standards” for existing major pollution sources, at least for fossil fuel fired electric generation plants. We do not know why you allege that Congress did not adopt the Johnson/Nixon flawed proposal for national emission standards to “bribe opponents.”&nbsp; Also, we are at a loss to explain why you ignore the role of State Implementation Plans which were to address every emission source, new or used, everywhere in the country to the extent they caused or contributed adverse effects on the health of persons. &nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>After reading your text, particularly the first five chapters, we reviewed the Clean Air Act legislative history which you say is the basis for your conclusions. Our review included a careful examination of the stenographic recordings of the markup sessions on environmental legislation.&nbsp; Beginning in 1969 the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution decided to have all of its legislative markup sessions, which were conducted behind closed doors, transcribed.&nbsp; We have reviewed those transcribed records which are available on the web site of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and at the Edmund S. Muskie Archives at Bates College.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>As noted above, your book does not cite any specific provision of any bill or report language in 1970 which could be described as a “grandfathering” or a “grandfather clause” nor does it cite any language which would suggest an intention to exclude existing major sources of pollution generally or coal and oil fired power plants from emission reduction rules.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Somehow you have concluded that because the Congress did not adopt a national emission standards proposal of the Johnson Administration in 1967, the intentional effect was to exempt existing sources of air pollution from Federal emission reduction requirements.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You also concluded that Senator Muskie and his colleagues, again intentionally, “grandfathered” those same existing sources of pollution from Federal regulation in 1970 when they rejected the House Committee proposal for national emission standards for existing sources of air pollution.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Your thesis completely ignores the fact that, starting in 1963, the Senate embarked on a policy directed at dealing with the health effects of air pollution, expanded that policy in 1965, reinforced it in 1966 and made it a regulatory policy in 1967.&nbsp; Further, you ignore the fact that neither of the referenced “national emission standards” proposals would have achieved the significant reductions in urban air pollution essential to protect the health of people.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As you must be aware, the Senate’s 1970 bill made major changes in the Clean Air Act’s regulatory structure.&nbsp; Not only were most of the provisions requiring Federal administrative action made mandatory, removing regulatory discretion, but deadlines were established.&nbsp; The Senate bill also eliminated virtually every opportunity for “cost of control” challenges to be brought against those regulations.&nbsp; Not only were health standards and margin of safety to be based solely on health science (epidemiological evidence) but the constraining terms “economic and technical feasibility” were removed from the law.&nbsp; Health of people, not affordability of pollution controls, became the basis for clean air regulation.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Both the Johnson and the Nixon legislation proposed that “national emission standards” would be based on that feasibility test.&nbsp; The Senate Committee, and particularly Senator Muskie, did not believe that minimal national emission standards so constrained would be adequate to achieve the health-based air pollution standards on which the CAA had been based.&nbsp; You fail to note that, in addition to new source performance standards, the Senate’s 1970 bill provided that existing sources when modified, would have to achieve a national emission standard based on a “best available technology” standard.&nbsp; These emission standards were not to be premised on either economic or technical feasibility as proposed by Johnson, Nixon and the House Committee but reductions available from the use of the best available technology.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You give short shrift to the requirement that “modifications” of existing sources would be required to achieve emission national emission standards. The fact that EPA, under both Democrats and Republican Administrators, ignored or failed to implement this provision was not a failure of the law.&nbsp; It is unclear to us why you would exonerate EPA for its 20 year failure to implement this critical provision of the 1970 amendments and then indict Senator Muskie and his colleagues for “missing the mark.” &nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We also don’t understand your apparent advocacy of national emission standards based on “economical and technical feasibility” as proposed by the Johnson and Nixon Administrations.&nbsp; To assume that such program would have resulted in meaningful emission controls is challenged by National Air Pollution Control Administration and EPA efforts to establish, by regulation, that “tall stacks, dispersion enhancement and operational controls” would be considered feasible even though there would be no measurable emission reductions.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Worse, any fair or objective analysis of the national emission standards proposals by Presidents Johnson or Nixon would have to conclude, as did Senator Muskie and his colleagues, that little reduction in actual pollution emissions would be achieved as a result.&nbsp; Repeatedly, in hearings and in the closed door legislative mark-up sessions Members, particularly Senator Muskie and the staff, raised questions about basing pollution reduction strategy on industry’s determination of what might be technically and economically feasible. &nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Senator Muskie insisted on making the “health of persons” the standard for establishing emission reduction requirements. He and his colleagues did not believe an industry-dependent definition of “feasible” emission reductions would achieve air quality protective of the health of people.&nbsp; Muskie and Republican Senator Howard Baker firmly believed and successfully argued that standards driven by the “health of persons” was the best way to force technology.&nbsp; Moreover these Senators did not believe that States, motivated by protecting local economies, would require any emission reductions beyond the “minimal” national emission standards.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">That view is corroborated by the myriad state laws that PROHIBT any State air quality or emission standards that are more stringent than those mandated by EPA and the Clean Air Act.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Your treatise also ignores nearly 50 years of history of the Clean Air Act and the fact that, but for the “health” standard, reductions in air pollution would have stopped long ago.&nbsp; You make excuses for the repeated failures of the Environmental Protection Agency under both Democrat and Republican Presidents, to implement the national emission standards provisions, both NSPS and HAPS, that were included in the 1970 Act. &nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You apparently find it easier to accuse the authors of the Clean Air Act of “caving in” to special interests.&nbsp; Yet the only evidence you cite is hearing testimony from an industry representative and a United States Senator both of which the Committee ignored. &nbsp; And then you apologize for EPA’s failure until 1995, to implement the very specific provisions of the law that authorized regulation of emissions from existing sources. &nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While we do not challenge the view that an “economic and technical feasibility” based emission control program is an alternative to a “health of persons” basis for national clean air policy, it is maliciously incorrect to suggest that Senator Muskie and his colleagues chose a health-based regulatory policy because they were “bribing” their opponents.&nbsp; Your language is doubly offensive because you cite Ralph Nader’s charge of capitulating to industry demands as your sole source.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The refusal of EPA to adopt strict rules applicable to “major modifications” of existing plants and the extent of lobbying and litigation to frustrate what little action EPA chose to take between 1970 and 1995 to require existing sources to meet new source performance standards would certainly be a more evidentiary basis for your case than a mere assertion of political corruption in the 1970 process. &nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>An added irony to the indictment presented in “Struggling for Air” is that the very focus in 1970 on “pollutants” rather than “sources” is the legally defensible basis for the President’s Clean Power Plan. (See the Amicus Brief we filed in the DC Circuit on the Clean Power Plan.)&nbsp; It is also the focus on “pollutants” rather than “sources” that justifies the HAPS regulatory program which forced power plants to control mercury emissions. &nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Frankly, we have no idea how many coal or oil fired power plants are, or were, located in areas where health standards are or were exceeded.&nbsp; We have no statistics on how many, if any, were required to install pollution controls. We do know that many urban coal and oil fired power plants either closed down or switched fuels to meet SIP rules.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; text-indent: 36px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">&nbsp;We do know that EPA’s nearly 30 year failure to implement the law’s requirement to install best available technology on modified plants of all kinds missed huge opportunities to reduce emissions from existing sources. Whether that failure was the result of special interest intervention or just agency delinquency is a case for someone else to make.&nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">&nbsp;<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Since enactment nearly fifty years ago we have experienced two oil embargoes, a huge dependency on foreign fossil fuels to feed our energy economy, the demise of nuclear power, the concerted effort by many in Congress and the Administration to convert domestic energy production from oil to coal, the explosion of domestic oil and natural gas production, the confrontation with climate change, and Citizens United.</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>You ignore those events and a decade’s long fight to frustrate implementation of the Clean Air Act but instead assign false and undocumented motives to the authors of the Clean Air Act.&nbsp; There was no conspiratorial endeavor to protect existing power plants from pollution control nor did Senator Muskie and his colleagues “miss their mark”. &nbsp;</span></span></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; min-height: 14px;"><br /></div><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Leon G. Billings and Thomas C. Jorling&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">LGB@leonbillings.com</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">tjorling@roadrunner.com</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br /><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span><br /><div style="-webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(4, 99, 193); -webkit-text-stroke-width: initial; color: #0463c1; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 36px;"><br /><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; -webkit-text-stroke-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: black;"></span></div></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-16879834531896427402016-08-29T11:17:00.000-04:002016-08-29T12:59:41.485-04:00Is the Dirty-AirBnB Crew Trying to Stage a CASAC Coup? Recently, we reported on <i><b>Dirty-AirBnB</b></i>, an effort by key lobbyists and polluters such as Koch and ExxonMobil to block new smog standards and weaken the Clean Air Act through campaign contributions to a Texas congressman.&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2asMtxD">bit.ly/2asMtxD</a><br /><br />Now some of those key players seem to be shifting their offensive to a different battlefield -- this time in concert with a controversial Texas scientist. In an excellent story you might have missed, <i>Greenwire</i> on Friday noted the "rare" campaign to place an industry-friendly state scientist on a key EPA clean air panel.<br /><br />The scientist, Michael Honeycutt, is the chief toxicologist with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. &nbsp;He has been a fierce critic of tougher public health standards for ozone, or smog. &nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2bNgZlN">http://bit.ly/2bNgZlN</a>&nbsp; &nbsp;In the process, he has become a darling for the oil and gas industries.<br /><br />And now the love is really starting to show!<br /><a name='more'></a><br />Here's what's at stake: The U.S. EPA receives vital advice on major, nationwide air pollution standards from a seven-member science advisory panel called the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, often referred to as CASAC. &nbsp;These are supposed to be independent scientists representing relevant disciplines. They are appointed for a three-year term by the head of the EPA, and they can be renewed for a second three.&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2bOiAYz">http://bit.ly/2bOiAYz</a><br /><br />EPA is not legally bound to follow the panel's recommendations, but the committee does tend to define the parameters of such agency decisions as the appropriate level for national health standards for ozone, fine-particle soot, etc. &nbsp;(Here, for example, was the panel on EPA's most recent effort to update ozone standards&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/VtsPr9">http://bit.ly/VtsPr9</a>&nbsp;.)<br /><br />And now there's a committee vacancy coming up for a scientist representing state governments. &nbsp;Can you guess who industry wants on that panel?<br /><br />As <i>Greenwire</i> noted, Honeycutt is making a hard pitch to join the panel. &nbsp;Well and good. It is certainly his right. <br /><br />But what caught our attention is that his bid is being supported by such major industry groups as ExxonMobil, Shell, Valero, the Koch-backed Mercatus Center, Western Refining, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, the chemical industry, the Texas Association of Manufacturers and the Texas Oil and Gas Association.<br /><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Others supporters of note: Bracewell LLP (representing the boiler owners) and Hunton &amp; Williams, representing&nbsp;<span style="background-color: white;">The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) Implementation Coalition as well as Hunton's Chuck Knauss, an ExxonMobil lobbyist specifically fighting against the ozone standards. Hunter &amp; Williams also lobbies for Koch Industries. (For more on Bracewell and Hunton &amp; Williams, see our report <i><b>DirtyAirBnB</b></i> at &nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2asMtxD">bit.ly/2asMtxD</a>&nbsp;)&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">[The Texas Observer wrote about Honeycutt's CASAC campaign on Aug. 11&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texasobserver.org/state-toxicologists-seeks-epa-seat/">https://www.texasobserver.org/state-toxicologists-seeks-epa-seat/</a> ]</span></span><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">Having an industry-friendly guy on this science panel would be a huge coup -- especially if, by chance, the courts block the new EPA ozone standard and order the agency to take another look at it.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">Is it coincidence that many of the industry groups backing Honeycutt are either suing EPA over the ozone standards or are members of associations that are? &nbsp;(For example, a Hunton &amp; Williams lawyer is representing electric power companies in the suit. &nbsp;The oil, chemical and manufacturing industries are also suing to block the smog standard.) Texas is one of 10 states also fighting the standards in court.</span><br /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">Honeycutt is controversial enough that, as <i>Greenwire</i> reported, seven Texas-based environmental groups have filed a letter opposing his appointment to the panel. &nbsp;</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">(Clean Air Watch did not oppose Honeycutt, though it did send a letter in support of another candidate, Bart Croes,&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Chief of the Research Division for the California Air Resources Board. Interestingly.&nbsp;Croes has been opposed by a noted EPA critic, Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma)</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">&nbsp;</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">We will continue to monitor this situation closely. &nbsp;For whatever reason, by the way, EPA has not posted the industry comments on its voluminous web site. &nbsp;<i>Greenwire</i> tracked them down through a Freedom of Information Act request. Bravo!&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Here's a sample of the support for Honeycutt from ExxonMobil and from ExxonMobil lobbyist (and Hunton &amp; Williams partner) Chuck Knauss:&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br /><div class="page" title="Page 7"><div class="section" style="background-color: rgb(100.000000%, 100.000000%, 100.000000%);"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: &quot;tahoma,bold&quot;; font-size: 8.000000pt;">From: </span><span style="color: rgb(0.000000% , 0.000000% , 100.000000%); font-family: &quot;tahoma&quot;; font-size: 8.000000pt;">Hampton, Sherman W<br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;tahoma,bold&quot;; font-size: 8.000000pt;">To: </span><span style="color: rgb(0.000000% , 0.000000% , 100.000000%); font-family: &quot;tahoma&quot;; font-size: 8.000000pt;">Yeow, Aaron<br /></span><span style="font-family: &quot;tahoma,bold&quot;; font-size: 8.000000pt;">Subject: </span><span style="font-family: &quot;tahoma&quot;; font-size: 8.000000pt;">Public Comment for Dr. Honeycutt (81 FR 19967-19969) </span><span style="font-family: &quot;tahoma,bold&quot;; font-size: 8.000000pt;">Date: </span><span style="font-family: &quot;tahoma&quot;; font-size: 8.000000pt;">Tuesday, June 21, 2016 2:01:33 PM </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 8.000000pt;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.000000pt;">Dear Mr. Yeow: </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.000000pt;">I am writing this in support of the nomination of Dr. Michael Honeycutt to the EPA Science Advisory Board. Dr. Honeycutt is bright and reasoned and has contributed significantly to the science of air pollution control toxicology and ozone science through his service to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. I have personally had professional interactions with him for several years and I cannot think of anyone more qualified nor better suited for this position. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12.000000pt;">If you have any questions or would like to discuss, please contact me via email or phone on one of the numbers below. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 11pt;">Sherman Hampton - State Advisor Exxon Mobil Corporation E-4.1B.367<br />22777 Springwoods Village Parkway Spring, Texas 77389 </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 11pt;">Office: 832-624-9834 Cell: 832-653-1996&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 11pt;">**</span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 11pt;"> </span><br /><div class="page" title="Page 93"><div class="section"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><span style="font-family: inherit;">From: <span style="color: blue;">Knauss, Chuck<br /></span>To: <span style="color: blue;">Yeow, Aaron<br /></span>Subject: Letter in Support of Dr. Michael Honeycutt for Membership on the CASAC Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:56:35 PM<br />Attachments: <span style="color: blue;">removed.txt </span></span><br /><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">2016-07-20 CASAC - Knauss Ltr Supporting Michael Honeycutt-c.pdf </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mr. Yeow, </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Please find attached my letter in support of Dr. Michael Honeycutt for membership on the CASAC. Please kindly let me know by reply email that you received this letter. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Best regards, </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Partner </span><br /><span style="color: #787878;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">cknauss@hunton.com </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">p 202.419.2003 m 202.257.0628 <span style="color: #787878;">bio </span><span style="color: grey;">| </span><span style="color: #787878;">vCard </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Hunton &amp; Williams LLP<br />2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 </span><br /><span style="color: #787878;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">hunton.com&nbsp;</span></span><br /><span style="color: #787878;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #787878;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">**</span></span><br /><span style="color: #787878;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span> <br /><div class="page" title="Page 53"><div class="section"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><span style="font-family: inherit;">From: </span><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Pemberton, Brittany</span><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">To: <span style="color: blue;">Yeow, Aaron<br /></span>Subject: Nomination of Dr. Michael Honeycutt for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 1:57:15 PM<br />Attachments: <span style="color: blue;">CIBO Letter in Support of CASAC Nomination (Honeycutt) - 07.12.16.pdf </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mr. Yeow, </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Please find attached a letter by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners in support of the nomination of Dr. Michael Honeycutt for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. </span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">Regards, </span><br /><span style="color: silver;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">______ </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #00305e; font-weight: 700;">BRITTANY M. </span><span style="color: #17365d; font-weight: 700;">PEMBERTON<br /></span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">Associate<br /></span><span style="color: #00305e;">Brittany.Pemberton@bracewelllaw.com<br /></span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">T: +1.202.828.1708 </span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">| </span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">F: +1.800.404.3970 | M: +1.703.409.3335 </span></span><br /><span style="color: #00305e; font-weight: 700;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">BRACEWELL LLP </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #4d4f53;">2001 M Street, NW, Suite 900 </span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">| </span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">Washington</span><span style="color: #484848;">, </span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">DC </span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">| </span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">20036-3310 </span><span style="color: #00305e;">bracewelllaw.com </span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">| </span><span style="color: #00305e;">profile </span><span style="color: #4d4f53;">| </span><span style="color: #00305e;">download v-card&nbsp;</span></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-56420774401562826532016-08-16T09:30:00.000-04:002016-08-16T12:58:35.766-04:00UPDATED: EPA expected to issue truck rule... but what about the issue of truck smog-forming emissions? <div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;">As many of you know, the U.S. EPA, by as soon as today, is expected to issue final rules designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from future big trucks. &nbsp;This is a very big deal and something that will cause much celebration in environmental group circles.&nbsp;</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;">However, I do want to remind you there is a related issue we are tracking and most interested in: smog-forming nitrogen oxides emissions from big trucks. As you may recall, 11 state and local government agencies have formally petitioned the EPA to set tougher NOx standards for big trucks.&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2buZsgT">http://bit.ly/2buZsgT</a>&nbsp; &nbsp;Public health groups have joined in that call.&nbsp;</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;">As we have learned with this summer’s numerous smog alerts, ozone is not just a California problem. We need additional tools to make sure everyone can breathe safely.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;">And big truck pollution is something that can and must be reduced. Indeed, without tougher truck controls, big trucks will become the biggest source of smog-forming NOx emissions in the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast within the next few years. &nbsp;</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; line-height: normal;"><br /></div><div style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: normal;"><div style="font-size: 12px;">We don’t expect EPA will respond to that state/local petition in its greenhouse rule, but we hope the agency will at least acknowledge the issue — and respond favorably to the petition in the near future. &nbsp;</div><div style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></div><b>UPDATE: </b><span style="font-size: 12px;">In the final rule, EPA promises to "engage with stakeholders" on possible NOx standards. &nbsp;See pages 99-104&nbsp;</span><br /><div style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://bit.ly/2bkHr8N">http://bit.ly/2bkHr8N</a></div></div>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-52834966906226661932016-08-06T09:51:00.001-04:002016-08-06T09:51:27.493-04:00DIRTY-AIRBNB? UPDATERecently, we published a report, <i><b>Dirty-airbnb?</b></i>&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2azHubG">http://bit.ly/2azHubG</a>&nbsp;which investigated the ties between Koch Industries and other polluters and an effort in Congress by Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) to delay smog cleanup and generally weaken the Clean Air Act.<br /><br />Olson spokeswoman Melissa Kelly told <i><b>Greenwire</b></i> that our investigation was "offensive and wrong."<br /><br />We are continuing to monitor these issues, and discovered a new connection: Koch is also the principal financial backer of a so-called "Leadership PAC" run by Olson called the "Freedom Matters PAC."<br /><br />This is basically a legal slush fund through which Koch (and a few other contributors) dish out cash which then is re-gifted to other candidates for office. <br /><a name='more'></a><br />Koch has given the Freedom Matters PAC $10,000 so far in this election cycle, including a $5,000 dollop in June just after Olson shepherded the smog legislation through the House of Representatives. Below are excerpts from the official filings with the Federal Election Commission.<br /><br />We will continue to monitor this situation and provide updates when warranted.<br />**<br /><br />Details for Committee ID : C00491910<br />Other Committees Contributions - FREEDOM MATTERS PAC<br /><br />Contributor Name<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Description<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>City<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>State<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Zip<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Receipt Date<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Amount<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Memo Code<br />HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>WASHINGTON<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>DC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>20001<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>12/07/2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$5,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>KOCH INDUSTRIES INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (KOCHPAC)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>WASHINGTON<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>DC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>20005<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>12/22/2015<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$5,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></b></span><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>KOCH INDUSTRIES INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (KOCHPAC)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>WASHINGTON<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>DC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>20005<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>06/27/2016<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$5,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></b></span><br />TAXICAB LIMOUSINE &amp; PARATRANSIT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (TLPA PAC)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>ROCKVILLE<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>MD<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>20852<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>03/21/2016<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$5,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>SAN ANTONIO<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>TX<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>78249<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>06/30/2016<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<br /><br />**<br />From the Freedom Matters Statement of Organization in 2010:<br /><br /><a href="http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/024/10030521024/10030521024.pdf">http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/024/10030521024/10030521024.pdf</a><br /><br /><div class="page" title="Page 3"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><span style="font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot;; font-size: 9.000000pt; font-weight: 700;">Freedom Matters PAC </span><br /><span style="font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot;; font-size: 9.000000pt; font-weight: 700;">6. Name of Any Connected Organization, Affiliated Committee, Joint Fundraising Representative, or Leadership PAC Sponsor </span></div></div></div><span style="font-family: &quot;helvetica&quot;; font-size: 9pt; font-weight: 700;">Peter G Olson</span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10569154.post-8237184840253226472016-08-02T00:30:00.000-04:002016-08-02T08:30:50.084-04:00DIRTY-AIRBNB?<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>A <span style="color: #3d85c6;">Clean Air Watch</span><span style="color: blue;"> </span>Investigation</i></b></span></div><b><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></b><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">Did the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil</span></i></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;and Friends Rent a Texas Congressman</span></i></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><i><span style="font-size: large;">&nbsp;— in a Gambit to Relax the Clean Air Act?</span></i></b></div><br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">[“Beware of the dark side…. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.”&nbsp;</span></b><br /><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">— Yoda, Return of the Jedi]</span></b><br /><br /><br />It’s often said that special interests with ready cash can “buy” politicians, including members of Congress. &nbsp;The issue came up during the Republican presidential debates when Donald Trump, accused of buying elected officials, readily agreed that he expected a favorable response from politicians who had taken his money (Trump also argued that he was just playing by the rules of a “broken” system.) :<a href="http://bit.ly/2a3GHjE">http://bit.ly/2a3GHjE</a><br /><br />Similarly, we recall a businessman friend bitterly complaining he had to pony up cash that would be bundled and given to then-Senator Hillary Clinton so that she would be receptive to that business’s legislative concerns. <br /><br /><a name='more'></a>But we believe it’s an overstatement to say politicians are literally “bought.” A more appropriate description could be “rented,” perhaps as one might do with an airbnb. &nbsp;This happens virtually every day, on numerous issues, in a U.S. Congress awash in campaign contributions.<br /><br />We sought to explain this concept early this year, when a reporter raised a question about congressional inaction on a major air pollution issue: &nbsp;Last fall, members of Congress had fiercely denounced new standards by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to limit smog, or ozone. &nbsp;No one was more fierce than a soft-spoken, relatively junior Republican congressman from Texas named Pete Olson. <a href="http://bit.ly/2atYncA">http://bit.ly/2atYncA</a><br /><br />Despite the hyperbolic, anti-EPA denunciations, Congress had made no moves to block EPA’s new limits. Why not, asked the reporter?<br /><br />Our premise: Olson would take action <u>after</u> checks were cut or promised. &nbsp;With an airbnb, reservations must be made, and so must payments. Likewise, introducing legislation has a price, as does a hearing and subsequent legislative drafting and votes. <br /><br />We set out to verify this premise by exploring the course of legislation (H.R. 4775) that Olson eventually did introduce and champion. The legislation, which would delay EPA’s standards and generally weaken the Clean Air Act, was sought by a business alliance led by a lobbyist for Koch Industries and several other oil and electric power companies. So we also took a look at the campaign contributions. &nbsp;(We began this probe because beat reporters could not.)<br /><br />Here’s what we found:<br /><br />A flurry of corporate campaign contributions to Rep. Olson from vocal opponents of smog cleanup — chiefly the oil and chemical industries — in a few week-period culminating with the introduction of H.R. 4775. &nbsp;(See time line below for detail.) A generous $2,500 check from the refinery lobby (American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers) was reported the day before Olson’s legislation was introduced March 17. &nbsp;ExxonMobil noted in a filing with the FEC that it cut a $2,500 check to Olson campaign committee on February 19, 2016 &nbsp;The purpose: <b>“Event on 3-18-2016”</b> <a href="http://bit.ly/2a3JHwy">http://bit.ly/2a3JHwy</a> &nbsp;[See appendix for the ExxonMobil filing with the Federal Election Commission.] &nbsp; In other words, Olson introduced the legislation one day before the planned fund-raising event.<br /><br />A second squall of checks, again from the refinery lobby — specifically from Koch, ExxonMobil and related interests — in the days leading up to April hearings by Olson on the legislation. ExxonMobil reported to the FEC that it contributed another $2,500 to Olson on April 14, 2016. &nbsp;The purpose: <b>“Event on 4-20-2016.”</b> <a href="http://bit.ly/2adL2R3">http://bit.ly/2adL2R3</a><br /><br />A third gust of gratuities from oil and related lobbies as Olson pressed forward with the legislation through the subcommittee and committee process in May.<br /><br />Finally, a virtual blizzard of bucks as Olson championed the legislation on the House floor in June.<br /><br />Were these campaign contributions all mere coincidence — or were they the equivalent of making the reservations, putting down a deposit, and settling the tab?<br /><br /><br /><b>The Legislation</b><br /><br />H.R. 4775 officially bears the innocent-sounding name “The Ozone Standards Implementation &nbsp;Act of 2016.” &nbsp;It was officially introduced March 17, 2016 by Rep. Olson and several co-sponsors. <a href="http://bit.ly/2au1Bd6">http://bit.ly/2au1Bd6</a><br /><br />Corporate lobbies, led by the oil industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, backed the legislation. <a href="http://uscham.com/2a8MZmO">http://uscham.com/2a8MZmO</a><br /><br />The legislation was also endorsed by a large coalition of conservative organizations led by the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity. <a href="http://bit.ly/2ai7FY6">http://bit.ly/2ai7FY6</a><br /><br />As anyone who has monitored the workings of Congress knows, these endorsements were not coincidental. &nbsp;The connection: Koch Industries.<br /><br />Koch’s interest in fighting emission limits was well documented in 2014 by Rolling Stone magazine. <a href="http://rol.st/2au3dU0">http://rol.st/2au3dU0</a> &nbsp;Fracking, refining, oil and gas transmission and paper mill pollution — Koch owns Georgia-Pacific — are among its concerns.<br /><br />Public health groups led by the American Lung Association <a href="http://bit.ly/2ai8r7x">http://bit.ly/2ai8r7x</a> &nbsp;branded Olson’s bill “The Smoggy Skies Act” because it would not only subject the breathing public to smoggy air for a longer time, but permanently weaken the underlying Clean Air Act. <a href="http://bit.ly/2ae4xsK">http://bit.ly/2ae4xsK</a><br /><br />Despite these objections, the House of Representatives passed the bill on June 8, 2016 in largely a party-line vote. There were some defections on both sides of the aisle. <a href="http://bit.ly/2aeEt0g">http://bit.ly/2aeEt0g</a><br /><br />The bill’s champion, throughout the committee and floor process, was its chief sponsor, Rep. Olson of Texas. His carefully scripted statements were replete with such hackneyed focus-group buzzwords as “common sense,” “work together,” “bipartisan” and “reform.” <a href="http://bit.ly/2asUEw1">http://bit.ly/2asUEw1</a><br /><br /><br /><b>The Congressman</b><br /><br />Olson is a pleasant-looking fellow who, though born in an Army medical center in Washington state, has lived most of his life in Texas. He became a decorated naval aviator. In other words, this guy was a real hero. <a href="https://olson.house.gov/about/biography">https://olson.house.gov/about/biography</a> &nbsp;<i>(A quick note about bias: we generally are very biased in favor of folks from Texas, and also biased in favor of those who have served in the military. And Rep. Olson’s military record is very impressive.) </i>&nbsp;Olson eventually became a naval liaison officer to the U.S. Senate.<br /><br />Olson later became an aide to then-Senator Phil Gramm of Texas. &nbsp;In 2002, Gramm was succeeded by John Cornyn, and Olson became Cornyn’s chief of staff. &nbsp;Olson returned to Texas in 2007 and was elected to Congress the next year. It is not hard to image a U.S. Senate seat in Rep. Olson’s future. For some lobby groups, that would make him a much more valuable commodity than the typical fourth-term Congressman.<br /><br />The govtrack service rated Rep. Olson the “most conservative” member of Congress based on bills introduced in 2015, though among the “lowest 10%” of all members in “joining bipartisan bills.” <a href="http://bit.ly/2auFyTI">http://bit.ly/2auFyTI</a><br /><br />The League of Conservation Voters gave him its lowest “0” rating in 2015 http://bit.ly/2aI0Nkj By contrast, Rep. Olson earned a 94% positive rating this year from the National Association of Manufacturers, including his support for HR 4775. <a href="http://bit.ly/2af0izM">http://bit.ly/2af0izM</a><br /><br /><br /><b>The District</b><br /><br />In his opening statement championing the ozone legislation, Rep. Olson referred to the “folks back home,” so perhaps we should take a moment to look at his home, the 22nd district of Texas. &nbsp;The district covers covers a largely suburban south-central portion of the Greater Houston metropolitan area. <a href="http://bit.ly/2aI1DgY">http://bit.ly/2aI1DgY</a><br /><br />It is the wealthiest congressional district in Texas and tends to vote heavily Republican. Prior representatives from the district (its boundaries have changed somewhat over time) included Ron Paul and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. &nbsp;DeLay was a vocal opponent of the Clean Air Act — at one point, introducing legislation to repeal the 1990 amendments to the law in their entirety. <a href="http://bit.ly/29XsOXF">http://bit.ly/29XsOXF</a><br /><br />Koch Industries is one of many businesses with offices or facilities in the district. <a href="http://bit.ly/2au124E">http://bit.ly/2au124E</a><br /><br /><br /><b>The Lobbyist</b><br /><br />The oil and gas industry has been a consistent supporter of Rep. Olson. Indeed, in his 2014 re-election, it was by far the biggest corporate contributor to his campaign, contributing nearly a quarter of a million dollars. <a href="http://bit.ly/2a9puWJ">http://bit.ly/2a9puWJ</a> &nbsp;The Texas-based Energy Future Holdings Corp. was the second-largest corporate contributor overall. <br /><br />It’s noteworthy that so much corporate money rolled in, given that Olson won re-election without breaking a sweat — winning two-thirds of the vote. &nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2a9pwy4">http://bit.ly/2a9pwy4</a> &nbsp;The pattern is continuing this year, as Olson is expected to win again without real trouble against an under-funded opponent.<br /><br />So it does raise a question: Why do oil, gas, electric power and other businesses contribute so much money to a lawmaker who really doesn’t seem to need it? &nbsp;Most people know intuitively — and academic research has demonstrated it <a href="http://bit.ly/2au29RU">http://bit.ly/2au29RU</a> &nbsp;— that campaign contributions translate directly into enhanced access and influence with a member of Congress and key staff members.<br /><br />You can’t “buy” such a person, but it certainly appears money can, in effect, rent some of their time and attention. <br /><br />In the process, Congress — surrounded by literally thousands of lobbyists — <a href="http://bit.ly/2aha3e7">http://bit.ly/2aha3e7</a> — has taken on the appearance of a giant influence-renting airbnb. &nbsp;In the case of ozone, some might call it a <b>Dirty-airbnb</b>. (This is, of course, a metaphor and does not in any way mean to disparage the airbnb brand itself.)<br /><br />Indeed, few issues have triggered as much lobbying activity as ozone, and few issues have prompted as much opposition from large oil companies. &nbsp;Indeed, President Obama shelved an EPA attempt to update national health standards in 2011 after the oil industry threatened that tougher standards could harm his re-election prospects. <a href="http://nyti.ms/2au2jIX">http://nyti.ms/2au2jIX</a><br /><br />Once re-elected, the President did permit EPA to move forward with a relatively unambitious new ozone air quality standard. EPA argued that its new standard — a mere 7% improvement from the previous one — would “improve public health protection, particularly for at-risk groups including children, older adults, people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma, and people who are active outdoors, especially outdoor workers.” <a href="http://bit.ly/2avcLkZ">http://bit.ly/2avcLkZ</a><br /><br />While filing the seemingly obligatory anti-EPA lawsuits <a href="http://bit.ly/2awFupm">http://bit.ly/2awFupm</a><br />— that will take years to grind through the courts — the oil and other industries turned their focus to Congress in an effort to thwart the new standards. &nbsp;And they spared little when it came to rhetoric:<br /><br /><ul><li>An “economic gut punch,” charged ExxonMobil &nbsp;<a href="http://exxonmobil.co/2aeq46I">http://exxonmobil.co/2aeq46I</a></li><li>A “barrier to opportunity for hardworking American families and business,” asserted the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, which singled out Rep. Olson “for sponsoring this legislation [HR 4775]” <a href="http://bit.ly/2ai7FY6">http://bit.ly/2ai7FY6</a></li><li>“Endless regulatory overreach,” charged the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. <a href="http://uscham.com/2ah3aJS">http://uscham.com/2ah3aJS</a></li></ul><br />So adamant — and persistent! — is the industry’s opposition that anti-ozone rhetoric even made its way into a recent EPA rule making regarding monitoring for a different air pollutant &nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/29idi41">http://bit.ly/29idi41</a> .<br /><br />In comments to the agency, the “counsel” for the “<b>NAAQS Implementation Coalition</b>” — a name strikingly similar to the official title of HR 4775 (The “<b>Ozone Standards Implementation Act</b> of 2016”) — argued EPA should delay any monitoring of the new ozone standard — thus blocking its application — while continuing to monitor the earlier and weaker standard. <a href="http://bit.ly/29idi41">http://bit.ly/29idi41</a><br /><br />The “Coalition” described itself as “trade associations, companies and other entities” that might have to install emission controls to meet tougher clean air standards.<br /><br />It turns out that the “Coalition” is not registered as an official lobby, though its “Counsel” — former well-regarded top congressional aide Joseph Stanko, now a partner with the Hunton &amp; Williams law firm — is a registered lobbyist for Koch Industries as well as for Phillips 66, Southern Company Services, Energy Future Holdings, CSX Corporation, and the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council. &nbsp;The last is a group of power companies, reportedly including Southern, Energy Future Holdings and Duke — run from a separate lobbying firm, Bracewell, LLP. &nbsp;(Formerly Bracewell Giuliani.) <br /><br />All of these companies have opposed tougher ozone standards or are members of trade associations that have.<br /><br />Hunton &amp; Williams is a major law and lobbying firm with a four decades-long history of representing industry clients opposed to tougher clean air controls. It boasts that Stanko has been named a “top lobbyist” and rated among the “best in the business hired guns” by <i>The Hill</i> newspaper. <a href="http://bit.ly/2aJZL7i">http://bit.ly/2aJZL7i</a><br /><br />Specifically regarding ozone, Stanko was a reported to be key player in pressuring President Obama to deep six the ozone standards in 2011. <a href="http://bit.ly/2aq04oI">http://bit.ly/2aq04oI</a> .<br /><br />As the EPA began to consider the issue again after the presidential election, Stanko again became a prominent critic. He testified before Congress as some law makers began building a case against tougher ozone standards. &nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2au3WpT">http://bit.ly/2au3WpT</a><br /><br />In addition to representing industry clients, Stanko is also a member of the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce Energy, Clean Air and Natural Resources Committee. &nbsp;The Chamber has consistently lobbied against tougher ozone standards and is also suing EPA to stop them. <a href="http://uscham.com/2aeqpXq">http://uscham.com/2aeqpXq</a> .<br /><br />In other words, Stanko appears to be in the eye of a corporate cyclone bearing down on the ozone standards.<br /><br />Indeed, last fall when the White House was reviewing the EPA ozone decision before its announcement, Stanko made no fewer than four visits to the White House to make his clients’ case against tougher smog standards:<br /><br /><ul><li>On Sept. 8, 2015, he attended a White House meeting requested by his group, the “NAAQS Implementation Coalition,” including other oil and chemical company lobbyists. <a href="http://bit.ly/2aK09mk">http://bit.ly/2aK09mk</a></li><li>On Sept. 15, he was present at a similar White House meeting with lobbyists from oil, electric power and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. <a href="http://bit.ly/2aq0jQz">http://bit.ly/2aq0jQz</a></li><li>On Sept. 25, Stanko joined other oil lobbyists at another White House meeting on the smog standards. <a href="http://bit.ly/2aK1Ccb">http://bit.ly/2aK1Ccb</a></li><li>On Sept. 28, he went to the White House yet again with other electric power industry lobbyists <a href="http://bit.ly/2avfefp">http://bit.ly/2avfefp</a></li></ul><br />As industry’s anti-ozone control campaign continued into 2016, it appeared as if Stanko’s law firm wanted lobbying reinforcements. Literally a week before Olson’s legislation (HR 4775) was about to be taken up by the whole House of Representatives Hunton &amp; Williams, announced the hiring of new partners — including “super attorney Charles H. Knauss” <a href="http://bit.ly/2avfRFK">http://bit.ly/2avfRFK</a><br /><br />Five days later, Knauss officially registered to lobby Congress for ExxonMobil. Among the key issues: H.R. 4775. <a href="http://bit.ly/2ah5TTg">http://bit.ly/2ah5TTg</a><br /><br />***<br /><br /><b>The Money</b><br /><br />Unlike the White House, Congress does not make a public record of lobbyist meetings. The only public trail —aside from lobbyist registrations and quarterly reports — is the record of campaign contributions, which members of Congress must give the Federal Election Commission every three months.<br /><br />And as Olson prepared to move forward with HR 4775, contributions started to flow to his re-election committee at key intervals, especially from the Hunton &amp; Williams and Bracewell clients and allied groups. &nbsp;In the several weeks leading up to the March 17, 2016, introduction of the legislation, checks arrived from the oil and chemical industries, including from ExxonMobil and the refinery lobby, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.<br /><br />As the House Energy and Commerce Committee held an April 14 hearing on HR 4775 <a href="http://1.usa.gov/1qwrOOe">http://1.usa.gov/1qwrOOe</a> , more money arrived — from Stanko’s client, Koch Industries, again from ExxonMobil and the refinery lobby — and even from Bracewell’s own PAC.<br /><br />Still more campaign cash came in through the transom as Olson championed the legislation through the Energy and Commerce Committee: noteworthy contributions from Stanko clients Energy Future Holdings and Phillips 66 as well as from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute.<br /><br />Finally, as Olson pressed his case in June on the floor of the House, still more money arrived at Olson’s campaign headquarters, including from Koch, American Petroleum Institute, the Chairman and CEO of Phillips 66, numerous other oil and power interests — and even from Hunton &amp; Williams itself.<br /><br />So were these companies buying — or renting — influence? &nbsp;One can only make inferences. The lawyers might say it is only circumstantial evidence. &nbsp;It is fair to point out, however, that these were not like donations to the Red Cross. <br /><br />Has Olson — unlike mythical aviator Luke Skywalker — succumbed to the Dark Side? &nbsp;Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. <br /><br /><br /><b>Epilogue</b><br /><br />Under Olson’s guidance, the House of Representatives passed HR 4775 on June 8, 2016 by a 234-177 vote. <a href="http://1.usa.gov/28CeqJO">http://1.usa.gov/28CeqJO</a><br /><br />The vote was generally along party lines, though 10 Republicans did oppose the bill, while seven Democrats voted in favor. &nbsp;All seven Democrats had received campaign contributions from Hunton &amp; Williams clients (Koch, ExxonMobil, and/or Southern Company.)<br /><br />The White House has threatened to veto the bill <a href="http://bit.ly/2ax9AWJ">http://bit.ly/2ax9AWJ</a> so its status remains uncertain. <br /><br />Portions of the bill were incorporated into spending legislation that the House approved July 14. <a href="http://bit.ly/29ZqD65">http://bit.ly/29ZqD65</a> . &nbsp;That legislation also faces a veto threat <a href="http://bit.ly/2aesfHG">http://bit.ly/2aesfHG</a> .<br /><br />A Senate counterpart to Olson’s legislation (S. 2882) has been the subject of one hearing. <br /><br />As for the money: During this two-year election cycle, through June 30th of this year, Koch’s political action committee had donated $1,240,900 to federal candidates or the PACs of like-minded lobbies — for example, to the American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the American Forest and Paper Association. <a href="http://bit.ly/2aqYMtN">http://bit.ly/2aqYMtN</a> (As noted below, both these associations gave generous donations to Rep. Olson. &nbsp;A re-gifting? Or was it Koch increasing its influence?)<br /><br />Of particular note: It gave $10,000 to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy on May 18, 2016 — the same day the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved HR 4775 and McCarthy boasted of his role in moving the legislation forward. <a href="http://bit.ly/2avhy68">http://bit.ly/2avhy68</a> . (McCarthy was a co-sponsor.)<br /><br />During the same 18-month period, the ExxonMobil PAC contributed $1,210,250. &nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/2ancsrl">http://bit.ly/2ancsrl &nbsp;</a>Among the recipients: Colorado Democratic Senator Michael Bennet, a rare Democrat who has raised concerns about the ozone standard. According to Federal Election Commission records, ExxonMobil reports it has given Bennet $10,000 through June 30. (Bracewell’s PAC has given Bennet $2,000.)<br /><br />Southern Company, during the same period, contributed $594,500.<br /><br />**<br /><b>Appendix</b><br /><b><br /></b><b>Rep. Pete Olson: &nbsp;Contributions and Timeline for HR 4775</b><br /><br />[Note: the list below focuses only on Rep. Olson during the time frame in question. Numerous other members of Congress have received contributions as well. &nbsp;See, for example, from Koch PAC at <a href="http://bit.ly/1tmuEae">http://bit.ly/1tmuEae</a> ]<br /><br /><br /><b>Flurry of pre-bill contributions:</b><br /><br />Contributor<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Amount<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Date<br /><br />ExxonMobil<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>2/15/2016<br />Spectra Energy<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>2/26/2016<br />Ford<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>2/29/2016<br />American Chemistry Council<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$5,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3/1/2016<br />Lyondell Chemical<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3/4/2016<br />Chevron<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3/15/2016<br />Hess<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; $2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3/15/2016<br />American Fuels and<br />Petrochemical Manuf.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3/16/2016<br /><br />Bill introduced<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3/17/2016<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">**Fund-raising event for Olson:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3/18/2016</span></b><br /><br />Bill hearing<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Hearing notice &nbsp;4/7/2016 /Actual hearing &nbsp;4/14/2016<br /><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">**Fund-raising event for Olson:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4/20/2016</span></b><br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="font-size: large; white-space: pre;"><b> </b></span><br />Contributor<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Amount<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Date<br /><br />Koch Industries<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4/13/2016<br />ExxonMobil <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4/14/2016<br />American Fuels and<br />Petrochemical Manuf.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$3,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4/20/2016<br />BRACEPAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4/21/2016<br />National Association of<br />Convenience Stores<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4/21/2016<br />Chesapeake Energy<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4/22/2016<br />Koch Industries<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4/26/2016<br /><br /><br />Bill markups<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Subcommittee &nbsp;5/11-12 <br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Full committee &nbsp;5/18/2016<br /><br />Direct Energy PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/2/2016<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />Victor Link<br />(oil/gas co. president)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/8/2016<br />Karen Linck<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/8/2016<br />Halliburton PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/10/2016<br />ExxonMobil PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/11/2016<br />Phillips 66 PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/13/2016<br />J. Ralph Ellis, Jr.<br />(oil/gas investor)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,700<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/16/2016<br />Energy Transfer PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$5,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/16/2016<br />American Petroleum Inst.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/17/2016<br />Energy Future Holdings<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/18/2016<br />Revati Puranik (oil/gas<br />extraction equipment)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,700<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/19/2016<br />DTE Energy PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/23/2016<br />BNSF Rail PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/23/2016<br />John B. Walker (oil CEO)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,700<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/26/2016<br />Lisa Walker<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,700<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/26/2016<br />John Lipinski (oil eco)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>5/29/2016<br /><br />Bill floor<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/8/2016<br /><br />American Petroleum<br />Institute PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/6/2016<br />Edison Electric Inst. PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/6/2016<br />Marathon Petroleum PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$5,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/6/2016<br />ConocoPhillips PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/6/2016<br />AGL PAC<br />(Southern Co. subsidiary)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$5,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/6/2016<br />Gregory Garland/<br />(Phillips 66 Chm/CEO)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,700<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/6/2016<br />Tenaska PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/6/2016<br />National Assn of Chemical<br />Distributors PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$3,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/6/2016<br />Arnold&amp;Porter PAC<br />(lobbyist:Energy Future<br />Holdings, others)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$550<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/8/2016<br />TXU Energy PAC <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/14/2016<br />Koch Industries PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/15/2016<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />Sima Ajani (Shell Oil)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,250<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/17/2016<br />Spectra Energy PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> $2,500 6/23/2016 &nbsp;&nbsp;</span><br />American Forest and<br />Paper Assn PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/24/2016<br />Robert Tudor (energy<br />investment&amp;banking)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,700<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/25/2016<br />Jeff MacKinnon (lobbyist for<br />Southern Co, Energy Futures<br />Holdings and others)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/27/2016<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />Valero PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$2,500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/28/2016<br />Rhod Shaw (lobbyist for<br />Duke Energy and<br />Southern Co. subsidiary)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/29/2016<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />Eversource Energy PAC<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$500<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/30/2016 <br />American Public Power &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; $750 &nbsp; &nbsp;6/30/2016<br />Hunton &amp; Williams<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>$1,000<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>6/30/2016<br /><br />[Note: as of publication, the Federal Election Commission had not processed all the PAC contribution data for June. &nbsp;Some of the dates noted above — for example, the contributions listed in late June — were the dates reported as received by Rep. Olson’s campaign committee. &nbsp;The actual contributions in some cases could have been made up to several weeks earlier. Clean Air Watch would like to gratefully acknowledge the Center for Responsive Politics and its opensecrets.org money-tracking website.]<br /><br />***<br /><br />Hunton &amp; Williams and Bracewell LLP common lobbying ties: &nbsp;Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, Energy Future Holdings, Southern Company<br /><br />Hunton &amp; Williams’ other clients include: Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Phillips66, CSX, First Energy Corp.<br /><br />Bracewell’s other clients include: Ameren, Duke Energy, DTE Energy, LGE&amp;KU Energy LLC,Arch Coal, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, Salt River Project, Valero Energy, Tesoro Refining<br /><br />***<br /><br />Illustrative FEC filings from ExxonMobil, noting fundraising “event” for Rep. Olson during a key moment in the development of HR 4775. &nbsp;(If only the other lobbies had been so informative!)<br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fCa7SozOlnQ/V5tmdjH61RI/AAAAAAAAAdA/MqxI4eFDCSQmo9Iv2VbU7ZeoNK0q8AuRQCLcB/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2016-07-26%2Bat%2B9.17.47%2BAM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="156" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fCa7SozOlnQ/V5tmdjH61RI/AAAAAAAAAdA/MqxI4eFDCSQmo9Iv2VbU7ZeoNK0q8AuRQCLcB/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2016-07-26%2Bat%2B9.17.47%2BAM.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GL5QEPrwLV0/V5tmrqIccaI/AAAAAAAAAdE/EVwyrrqvoUgY956n1cMdk3QiGOu8uaqUwCLcB/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2016-07-26%2Bat%2B9.26.27%2BAM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="258" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GL5QEPrwLV0/V5tmrqIccaI/AAAAAAAAAdE/EVwyrrqvoUgY956n1cMdk3QiGOu8uaqUwCLcB/s400/Screen%2BShot%2B2016-07-26%2Bat%2B9.26.27%2BAM.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Frank O'Donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16390417292447420782noreply@blogger.com0